Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the refusal of his Department to grant the issue of supplementary coupons to the Manchester City Mission for the provision of uniforms as worn by the deaconesses of the mission.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am giving this matter further consideration.

Mr. Prescott: May I say how much obliged I am to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, and express the hope that he will give very favourable consideration to this very worthy cause?

Exports and Imports (Statistics)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of our exports for the first quarter of this year was represented by N.A.A.F.I, and U.N.R.R.A. supplies;
(2) what percentage of our imports for the first three months of this year came from the hard currency area; and what percentage of our exports went to this area.

Sir S. Cripps: Full information about N.A.A.F.I. and U:N.R.R.A. supplies will be found in the Board of Trade Journal for 26th April; and about our trade with hard and soft currency areas in the Board of Trade Journal for 24th May.
The approximate percentages are:

Per cent.


U.N.R.R.A. exports
2·5


N.A.A.F.I. exports
·9


Hard currency imports
47·5


Hard currency exports (including re-exports)
21·25

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that when calculating the difference between our imports and exports, these uncommercial exports are included, and ought they not to be excluded?

Sir S. Cripps: I presume the hon. Member refers to the U.N.R.R.A. and N.A.A.F.I. figures. If the U.N.R.R.A. exports do not go under the ægis of U.N.R.R.A., they may well go under some other ægis.

Surplus Service Boots (Disposal)

Mr. Attewell: asked the President of the Board or Trade if he is aware that Government surplus officers' field boots, sold by the Government at £1 7s. 6d. per pair under condition of sale that the boots be exported, were retailed on the home market at £3 5s. per pair: if the rice between £ 7s. 6d. and £3 5s. is within the price margin fixed by him; if Purchase Tax has been paid on the sales of these boots; and what steps he is taking to prevent future evasion of conditions of sale.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I am aware of this unsatisfactory transaction. The difference between the Government surplus sale price and the retail price charged does exceed the total of distributors' permitted margins for footwear and it is not yet established whether Purchase Tax has been paid on any or all of these boots. These matters are being looked into, but steps have been taken to ensure that future sales of this type are confined to traders whose full observance of conditions of sale can be guaranteed.

Mr. Attewell: How was it possible for my right hon. and learned Friend's Department to give the answer on 3rd April that they were aware of the sales, and justified them on the ground that they were in accordance with the method of disposal of Government surplus articles,


when the answer now proves that they could not have been in possession of that information?

Sir S. Cripps: After further inquiry, we have come to the conclusion which I have stated.

Oversized Tyres

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of 25 by 6 tyres required by many local authorities for vehicles engaged in refuse disposal and cleansing work; what action he is taking to persuade tyre manufacturers to meet this urgent need; and when it is anticipated that outstanding demands will be met.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the shortage of this and other sizes of giant tyres. Tyre manufacturers are giving as much priority as possible to the needs of local authorities for their sanitary vehicles, but they have also to provide for new sanitary vehicles and for the competing needs of many other essential transport services. It is not possible to anticipate when outstanding demands will be met.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities cannot get tyres for their ambulances, and would he give attention to that matter also?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question. Ambulances take a much smaller tyre than the oversized tyres mentioned in the Question.

Trade with Japan

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been made with regard to the right of British firms to trade with Japan; and what arrangements have been made so far as the payments in dollars or sterling are concerned.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend will have read in the Press, an announcement was made by General MacArthur in Tokyo on Monday last authorising the resumption of private trade with Japan, with certain limitations, from 15th August next. The Orders relaxing the United Kingdom trading with the enemy restrictions have already been issued. As regards the second part of the

Question, negotiations on these and other points, including the size of the quotas of business men from each country to be permitted to enter Japan, are still proceeding with the American authorities.

Mr. Davies: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask whether the 11 nations concerned with the set-up in Japan have met to discuss the possibilities of fixing the international commercial rate for the yen; and could he also state whether the United States Commercial Corporation will control this trade in Japan, as some of us are given to understand, after 15th August?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put those Questions on the Paper.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: On which system are these men to be allowed to go to Japan? Will it be by selection, or will it be open to anybody?

Sir S. Cripps: It will probably be on the basis of allocating certain numbers from each nation. That has not yet been settled, but anybody who wishes to go should communicate with my Department.

Flannel Trousers

Mr. Keenan: asked the President of the Board of Trade, why tailors and clothing outfitters in Liverpool are unable to obtain supplies of men's flannel trousers; and why there is an abundance of women's flannel slacks for which there is little demand.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware that tailors and outfitters in Liverpool are not obtaining their share of the supplies of men's flannels. There is a general shortage because, while demobilisation led to a large increase in demand, the output of cloth especially of worsted flannel trouserings is increasing only gradually and is still well below prewar. So far as women's garments are concerned, I have no reason to suppose that manufacturers will continue to produce in any quantity those types for which there is little demand.

Rubber Wellington Boots

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large quantities of new rubber Wellington boots have been cut up and delivered to mills for fuel in recent weeks; under what authority this is being done; and if he will take immediate steps to stop such waste.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such waste of new rubber boots; but if the hon. Member can give me any detailed information, I will certainly look into the matter immediately.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there were very large quantities of new boots, some of them marked "Dunlop"? I will do my best to produce some for him.

Tobacco (Consumption)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much tobacco consumption has been reduced since the Budget; whether the reduction is as great as was anticipated; and what steps is he taking to substitute Empire-grown for U.S. tobacco.

Sir S. Cripps: There was a substantial drop in tobacco consumption immediately after the Budget, but it is too early yet to estimate accurately whether consumption will settle down at a level above or below the target of a 25 per cent. reduction set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are already buying al] the Empire tobacco that is available.

Mr. Osborne: Is the quantity of Empire grown tobacco sufficient to make up for the 25 per cent. the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to save on imports from America?

Sir S. Cripps: No. That will be taken off what is left.

Woolcombing (Soda Ash)

Mr. Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure increased production of soda ash; whether he is aware that woolcombers in the wool textile industry cannot increase their 1946 output without increased allocations of soda ash; and whether he will arrange for such increased allocations to be made.

Sir S. Cripps: Production of soda ash is at present limited by coal supplies. I am examining the position as to woolcombers' supplies.

Refuse Collection (Waste Paper)

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what procedure is now in force in regard to the separation of paper from other refuse col-

lected by local authorities; and by what regulations it is prescribed.

Sir S. Cripps: The Directions under Defence Regulations 54B, served on local authorities requiring them to collect certain salvage materials, including waste paper, and keep them separate from ordinary refuse, still remain in operation. Local authorities for the more populous areas are being urged to see that the work is effectively carried out.

Tailoring Alterations (Maximum Charges)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the maximum amounts of expenditure allowed to be incurred for alterations to ready-made, utility, and non-utility garments, respectively; by what regulations they are prescribed; and for what purpose.

Sir S. Cripps: Subject to certain exceptions, the maximum charges for alterations to ready-made garments are 20s. for utility and 20s. for non utility. It was necessary to prescribe maximum charges for alterations to ready-made garments in order to prevent evasion of price control. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the orders which prescribe these maximum charges.

Mr. Walker-Smith: While appreciating the reason which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given for this, may I ask whether he realises that very little alteration can, in fact, be done for those maximum sums? Does he not think some up-scaling of them may now be required?

Sir S. Cripps: This matter has been considered, and, in order to prevent evasion, we think the present sums ought to be stuck to.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the maximum sum fit the maximum size?

Following is the list:

General Apparel Furnishings and Textiles (Wholesalers' and Retailers' Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1946 (S.R.&O. 1946/1747).

Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O. 1945/184).

Utility Apparel (Women's and Maids' Outerwear) (Consolidation) Directions, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946/795).

Utility Apparel (Men's Youths' and Boys' Outerwear) (Consolidation) Directions, 1946 (S.R. & 0. 1946/794).

Fur Apparel (No. 9) Directions and Licence, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946/1162).

Shirts and Scarves (Boy Scouts)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of shirts and scarves for Boy Scouts; and whether material can be diverted from army purposes to help alleviate the situation.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that these difficulties are no greater than in other cases. It is impossible to make any special arrangements for diversion of surpluses to meet this case, but such surpluses as do arise are distributed through the normal channels of trade, and manufacturers of Boy Scouts shirts and scarves can purchase such surplus material.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Imports from U.S.A.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal from the U.S.A. is to be imported into the United Kingdom by the end of 1947.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As a result of the recent application made by the United Kingdom to the European Coal Organisation, an allocation of American coal has been made to this country for the third quarter of 1947. This allocation, which amounts to 600,000 tons for the quarter, is contingent upon the total U.S. availability of export coal to Europe attaining and exceeding 3,000,000 tons per month. Provision has also been made by the European Coal Organisation whereby, in certain circumstances, the United Kingdom will be entitled to secure tonnages of U.S. coal in excess of the 600,000 tons, and in certain other circumstances, to secure some coal if the U.S. availability is below 3,000,000 tons. The allocation of American coal to European destinations for the fourth quarter will not take place before August, and it is not possible to forecast what the position will be at that date.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister give the House an assurance on two points? First, that the maximum quantity of coal available to this country will be imported from the U.S.A. to avoid the possibilities of another fuel crisis? Secondly, that future information about these matters will be given to this House in the first instance?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the amount of coal, we shall, of course, secure the maximum amount of imports; but there is a limit to what we can receive. As regards furnishing information, we always do furnish information to the House on these matters in the first instance.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is likely to be the price of that imported coal? What will be the equivalent of 600,000 tons in terms of daily output from our own mines?

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first supplementary, I shall answer a Question on that matter later on. As regards the second, I should like to see it on the Paper.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: How does the Minister reconcile his statement that he always gives publicity with his refusal to give publicity to the salaries paid to the members of the Coal Board?

Mr. Shinwell: That is wholly irrelevant.

Local Fuel Overseer's Decision (Appeal)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power under what authority a local fuel overseer acts in forbidding a consumer from changing his coal merchant; and if any appeal lies against the decision of the fuel overseer.

Mr. Shinwell: The power to grant or refuse a change of registration for coal supplies is vested in local fuel overseers by Article 30 of the Coal Distribution Order, 1943. An appeal against any local fuel overseer's decision on this matter may be made, under Article 55 of the same Order, to the regional coal officer.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has come when these fuel overseers—little Hitlers—should be dispensed with?

Mr. Shinwell: I think not. The local fuel overseers render very valuable service.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is there any machinery of appeal from the ruling of a regional officer to the right hon. Gentleman to get satisfaction?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, there is always access to the Minister.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is there any facility for getting rid of our Fuel Minister?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman does not care a tinker's cuss.

Short Weight Consignments

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of complaints by retail coal merchants that trucks are arriving seriously short of the declared amount carried; that this is adding to the difficulties, both of retailers and domestic consumers; and what action will be taken to avoid this in the immediate future.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, but short weight may be due to one or more of a variety of causes, and I can hold out no hope of an early or comprehensive solution of this long standing and difficult problem. As far as colliery weights are concerned, however, I am informed by the National Coal Board that they already have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is alleged in some parts that this abuse is increasing? In view of that, could not something specially be done, at least, to get back to the normal rules of supply?

Mr. Shinwell: It would require the removal of a great many defects—in the loading of coal at collieries and in the tare of wagons; and we should require to ensure that the coal was not pilfered in transit.

Coal Purchases from U.S.A.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Bossom:
26. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal Great Britain is arranging to purchase from the U.S.A.; and what is the price per ton that is being paid for this.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is not here to ask the Question which you have just called, and as I asked a supplementary seeking this information just now, is it not right that the Minister should answer it?

Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member is not here to ask a Question I am afraid it cannot be asked.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Further to that point of Order. As the Minister stated definitely

that he would deal later with the supplementary of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) when we reached this Question, cannot he now answer it?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a Question answered that is not asked.

Mr. Stewart: It was only the other day, was it not, that a Minister answered at the end of Questions a Question which had been passed by? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it would not be fitting that the Minister should take that course on this occasion?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me at all.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. May I ask the Leader of the House if he will now invite the Minister of Fuel and Power to make his promised statement on the price to be paid for imported American coal?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not think it is for me to invite Ministers to answer particular questions. The fact is that the hon. Member who put down the Question was not here, and it would really be rather unusual for a Minister to reply in those circumstances.

Mr. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Minister of Fuel and Power, in answer to my supplementary question, indicated that he intended to make a statement, and further that his statement about the importation of American coal is quite incomplete unless the House knows what the price is going to be.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member rose to a point of Order, it should be addressed to me and I must deal with it. The blame lies upon the hon. Member who was not here when the Question was called. We cannot expect the Minister to look round to see whether a Member is here; he is quite entitled to say that he has a Question down and is going to answer it. It will, of course, be answered in due course in HANSARD.

Opencast Mining (Restoration)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the number of cases, showing acreages


and periods in excess of four weeks, where opencast coalmining has ceased and restoration has not begun.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret that information in the form requested by the hon. and gallant Member is not available, and could not be obtained without special inquiry. If, however, he has in mind any particular case where restoration seems to have been unduly delayed and will send me details, I will look into the matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what were the total estimated yields of opencast coal from sites already restored, and from sites where working has finished but which await restoration; and what were the actual yields in both cases.

Mr. Shinwell: On 28th May, 1947, the latest date for which the information is available, 15,091,197 tons of coal had been produced from worked out sites, as compared with original estimates before working started of 18,767,346 tons, or an overall recovery of 80.4 per cent. The information available does not distinguish between sites already restored and worked out sites awaiting restoration.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister say whether some of the sites which originally were considered not to be worth working, in the light of the quality of the coal, are now being worked, in view of the yield being considered adequate?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the quality of coal varies on these opencast sites. We must go on working them.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that sites which were likely to produce poor quality coal are now being worked, despite the fact that it was not intended to requisition them earlier on; and is coal of poor quality now being used for some other purpose that was not possible before?

Mr. Shinwell: It seems as if the hon. and gallant Member has some particular case in mind. I wish he would let me have it.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he Will, on application, provide owners of land re-

quisitioned for opencast coalmining with a copy of the conditions as to restoration contained in each contract affecting their land.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Mackeson: Have the county agricultural executive committees also given some information, in view of the importance of ensuring that proper drainage is instituted when restoration work takes place; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look at it but I should imagine that every owner of requisitioned land is furnished with a copy, and that is as much as I could do.

Carbonisation, Yorkshire

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been carbonised per week in Yorkshire ovens owned by the National Coal Board since 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: The average quantity of coal carbonised weekly between 1st January and 31st May, 1947, at coking plants in Yorkshire belonging to the National Coal Board amounted to 58,165 tons.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that I am firmly convinced that there would be a considerable increase in output with carbonisation on a full throw-out; and that, furthermore, I am firmly convinced that some of them—even under the coke-oven plant owned by the N.C.B.—are not doing as much as they might do?

Mr. Shinwell: We have, on the basis of this weekly average, carbonised 1,250000 tons since the beginning of the year. But I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and see what can be done.

Output Figures

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) why, in view of the great public interest in coal production, he has instructed the National Coal Board to discontinue the publication of weekly output statistics;
(2) why he has decided that coal-production figures should henceforth be given on a national instead of a divisional basis.

Mr. Shinwell: Weekly figures of current coal output are normally given in the


Ministry of Fuel and Power's monthly Press announcement. Provisional estimates of coat output have recently been given at weekly intervals because of the public interest in the effect on output of the five-day week. Provisional estimates of this kind are, however, subject to considerable margins of error, and it is not proposed to continue to publish them regularly. Weekly figures will, however, continue to be given in the monthly Press announcement, both on a national and on a regional basis

BRITISH ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reason given by Mr. Hobson for declining the position of Deputy Chairman of the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Shinwell: In the letter he wrote to me Mr. Hobson gave no reason for declining a proposal I had made to him that he should be a Deputy Chairman of the British Electricity Authority when it is set up.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the Minister aware that this Mr. Hobson was formerly one of the most experienced men in this particular field in this country; and is it not a fact that he would not serve under this particular authority?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no indication of that in Mr. Hobson's letter, which I have before me.

FUEL OIL SUPPLIES (CONVERSION PROJECTS)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any further statement to make regarding conversion from coal to oil.

Mr. Shinwell: In my previous statement I explained that the annual rate of oil consumption represented by schemes of conversion already approved would be increased to five million tons a year, equivalent to an annual saving of coal of eight million tons by the middle of 1948. This programme, which is the maximum that can be achieved in that time, has been reviewed, and the Government have decided against any further general extension of

the programme for the time being. The matter will, however, be considered again in the autumn, when the trend of coal output will be more clearly established.
In the meantime, to provide in appropriate cases for applications that are now awaiting consideration, arrangements will be made to import another one million tons of oil a year. After meeting these cases there will be some margin for special cases where it can be shown that the amount of coal saved would be exceptionally high in proportion to the amount of oil burnt, but no other new applications can be entertained. The additional import of one million tons of oil a year will not begin to be available before the third quarter of 1948, but it is not anticipated that most of the firms whose applications may now be authorised will be able to complete conversion before that quarter: any exceptional case where earlier conversion is possible will be given special consideration. In the result, unless it is decided in the autumn to increase the whole programme, the consumption of fuel oil on coal-oil conversion projects will attain a rate of six million tons a year, and will result in an annual saving of ten million tons of coal by the calendar year 1949.

Mr. Henry Usborne: During the course of his reply the Minister stated that the programme to use up to five million tons of oil was the maximum that can he achieved. Why is it the maximum? Is it because that is the maximum amount of oil that can be imported to this country; or is it because in the estimation of my right hon. Friend it is the maximum amount of oil which can be burnt by the equipment which can be supplied in the time?

Mr. Shinwell: We must have regard to several factors. One is the element of uncertainty about the imports of fuel oil in the next few years. In addition, there is difficulty regarding the supply of steel for the purpose of manufacturing the equipment. Apart from that, we must have regard to the possibility—I would not put it higher than that—that in 1949 we shall be producing a larger amount of coal, and, to that extent, would not require fuel oil.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend also continue to bear in mind


the necessity for making and keeping ourselves as self-supporting as we possibly can, in the event of there being another national emergency?

Mr. Shinwell: We are doing what we can to safeguard supplies, but supplies are obviously affected by a great many considerations, some of which are out of our control.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to those cases in which the preliminary work is practically completed, and where they are ready to convert except for the oil? Surely their case should have first consideration?

Mr. Shinwell: I think I can give an assurance on that point at once. If the work is already in hand, of course, the fuel oil will be supplied.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the nature of a gamble to assume that there will be sufficient coal available in 1949 to render a large extension of this conversion programme unjustified; and would he consult with the firms engaged in this work, who are very anxious to see a very much bigger scheme than he is prepared to agree to?

Mr. Shinwell: We are in constant consultation with the manufacturing firms in this matter. Of course, we use as our medium the Petroleum Board, who are experts in this regard. As regards the future of coal supplies, the hon. Member will have taken note of the fact that we are seeking to achieve a saving of 10 million tons in 1949.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is not very clear, but perhaps we shall understand it better when we read the terms of the Minister's answer. It would appear that this position is a reversal of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman earlier on. Are we to take it that with regard to any individual firm which placed orders on the strength of the Minister's appeal, the necessary machinery will be allowed to be installed when delivered?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, this is no reversal of the programme originally arranged.

Mr. Hudson: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? Where firms or

individuals have placed orders for machinery, on the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier appeal to do what they could to convert coal or coke burning installations into oil, and got the machinery delivered, are they to be allowed to instal the machinery or are the orders to be cancelled?

Mr. Shinwell: If the scheme has been approved by the Department the oil will materialise.

DELINQUENT FAMILIES (HOME VISITS)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing number and variety of officials who have been given rights by the Government to demand entrance to the homes of the people throughout the country, he will give an assurance that no system of inspection under which psychologists visit delinquent families in their homes will be permitted.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have no knowledge that any such system of inspection is contemplated.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British public is very long suffering? That must not lull the Government into believing that they can interfere more and more with the daily life of the nation. Our people merely want to lead their own lives in their own way — [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Never mind about "Speech." What about an answer?

Mr. Ede: I told the hon. Member that no such appointments are contemplated.

Mr. Dc la Bère: Can I have a definite assurance?

CHILDREN'S OFFICERS (QUALIFICATIONS)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Cambridge County Council is inviting applications for the post of children's officer at a salary of £360 per year; whether he has given guidance to local authorities as to the qualifications and experience desirable for this work; and whether, in view of the


recommendations of the Curtis Report, he is satisfied that local authorities are aware of the need to offer salaries which will attract applicants of the requisite high standard for this important and responsible work.

Mr. Ede: My attention has been drawn to this advertisement, and I am in communication with the county council. It is of great importance that the salaries offered for posts of children's officer should be such as to attract candidates with a high standard of qualifications, as recommended in the Report of the Care of Children Committee. I intend shortly to issue guidance to local authorities on this and other matters bearing on the implementation of the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In laying down the qualifications, will the right hon. Gentleman see that undue stress is not placed on academic qualifications, and that proper emphasis is placed on humane and humanitarian qualifications?

Mr. Ede: I shall endeavour to see that the qualifications required are well balanced. I accept the general principle contained in the hon. Member's remarks.

NATIONALISED UNDER-TAKINGS (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is the practice of Ministers of His Majesty's Government to decline to disclose to Parliament the salaries and allowances paid to members of the boards and executives of national undertakings, when they have power under the Statutes to obtain that information; and if he will issue instructions that this practice is to cease and full information be given.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Salaries and allowances of members of the boards of socialised industries have been disclosed to Parliament. Members of these boards are appointed by the Minister concerned, he determines the terms and conditions of appointment, and in respect of these he is responsible to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware that information has been declined in respect of executive staff of such undertakings. They are

appointed by the board concerned, and the Minister has no responsibility. Appointment and remuneration of staff are functions of management, and the Government believe that socialised boards should have the same freedom and privacy in this respect as does any other commercial undertaking.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that under the Companies Bill the salaries of all executives will have to be disclosed? Is not the maintenance of this secrecy entirely opposed to a democratic system, and is it not a scandal that Parliament are not to be kept informed on these matters?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is not so under the Companies Bill, but in any case it is not yet law. If the House wanted this information, they should have made provision for it in the Bills, but there was considerable pressure from the Opposition side that the Government should not have excessive powers of interference.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Will the figures be given in the published accounts of these boards?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say. I do not think there is any obligation on the boards to give them. On the face of it, it is clear that there should be no more obligation put on them than in the case of any other commercial undertaking.

Mr. Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the combination of the words "desirability of privacy" with "expenditure of public money"?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to know better. These boards are not spending public money, but money which comes out of their revenue.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleagues, in the course of the discussions which took place on the Bills to which he has referred, definitely refused to allow provisions to be included for the publication of these figures?

Mr. Morrison: In that case, it shows how well they responded to the doctrines and policy of the Opposition, and hon. Members opposite ought to be grateful.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To the extent that public money is involved in these undertakings, whether by subsidy or not, will the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates have a right to make these investigations?

Mr. Morrison: It is clear that if public money—I am talking about money voted by Parliament—becomes involved then Parliamentary accountability arises.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Opposition not wanting the Ministers to have increased powers over these boards, but is he aware that this question suggests that the Minister should give to Parliament information which is already in his possession, or should be?

Mr. Hogg: Is not the real reason for the reticence in this respect the obvious discrepancy between the Socialist Government paying salaries of £40, £50 and g60 a week, and what they have been telling us for the last 50 years?

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent, except in the case of members of the Secret Service, for refusing to Parliament information about salaries and allowances coming out of public funds?

Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord is hopelessly wrong. He really ought to know the first elements of this. These salaries are not paid out of money voted by Parliament, but out of the revenue of these business undertakings. Therefore they are in a different category from the Civil Service, where money is paid out of Parliament. These are not Civil Service undertakings, but commercial bodies.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for a Minister refusing to give information in the possession of his Department when the public interest is involved?

Mr. Morrison: I have no idea whether the information is in the possession of the Minister or not; in fact, in some cases Ministers have specifically stated that they have not the information.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Mr. De Ia Bère: It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Bread Rationing Administration (Staff)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Labour what plans and arrangements he has made for the absorption of the 2,000 people who are at present employed by the Ministry of Food in the administration of the bread rationing system when that system comes to an end.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): When employees of the Ministry of Food become redundant through the abolition of bread rationing, the facilities offered by local offices of my Department are available to assist them to find further employment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not going to make a speech about this? Is he further aware that the tragic farce the Government made of bread rationing leaves me absolutely speechless?

Mr. Isaacs: If the consequence of the "tragic" legislation passed by the Government is your silence, I think it would be a good job if we had some more.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the gross attack the Minister has just made in addressing you. He said that it would be better if you kept silent. Is that in Order from a Minister? [Interruption.] It is time you obeyed the Rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it missed me.

Earl Winterton: It is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has been grossly disorderly, or perhaps rude in addressing you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to say that it is about time "you" learnt the Rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I think we might call it even—it is a Roland for an Oliver.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, may I most humbly apologise and express the hope that the Minister of Labour will have the courtesy to follow my example?

Mr. Isaacs: If following the noble Lord's example is courtesy, I shall avoid doing it.

Mr. De la Bère: I am quite happy. Nothing would ever keep me speechless.

Football Pool Staffs

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if his talks with the football pool promoters are now completed; what labour they expect to employ in the coming season; what reductions they have made in their staffs and to what industries has the labour gone; and if he is now satisfied with the position.

Mr. Isaacs: In reply to the first and last parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), on 17th April last. Information to enable replies to be given to the remainder of the Question is not available.

Mr. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is satisfactory now, in June, to give me an answer as to the state of his mind last April? Is he satisfied with the position today, in view of the bottleneck in labour in the textile industry? Cannot he get more labour from the football pools to put into this industry? Is he satisfied with the position?

Mr. Isaacs: I was not asked whether I was satisfied or not; I was asked about the position.

Mr. Osborne: I did ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied.

Mr. Isaacs: I referred the hon. Member to the answer I gave to another hon. Member, which sets out all the information I have at my disposal.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order. The Minister said, Sir, that I did not ask whether he was satisfied with the position. Can the Minister read and understand King's English?

Mr. Speaker: Whether a Member likes the answer that is given to him or not is not a point of Order.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that between now and the next football season this matter will be most actively pursued, as there is a widespread feeling among those who are in no sense spoilsports that there is a great waste of manpower in connection with football pools?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no authority to intervene in what should or should not be the activities of these football pool associations. The answer I gave earlier, and the conference I had with them, showed that they were most anxious to co-operate, and are carrying out the undertaking they gave me.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Due, I am sure to a misunderstanding, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.

Mr. Isaacs: I said that I had no further information beyond what I have already given.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied? That was my question. He is afraid of it.

Further Education and Training Grants

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continuing reductions in the period of service in the Armed Forces, it is proposed that grants for further education and training will be perpetuated along existing lines.

Mr. Isaacs: Some changes are to be made after 30th September next; but as the detailed statement is long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

It has been decided that men who begin their period of national service under the National Service Acts after the 30th September, 1947, will not qualify for grants for full-time courses of training for which awards are administered by the Education and Agricultural Departments. Financial assistance in the form of scholarships and bursaries is available from public educational funds to enable suitably qualified persons to attend universities, technical colleges, agricultural colleges, etc. There will be a number of men in process of being called up on 30th September who cannot be enlisted by that date because of unavoidable delays in procedure and whom it would be unfair to exclude from eligibility on that account. Those men whose applications for deferment (in order to enable them to begin or continue courses of higher education in the autumn of 1947) are not decided by the University Joint Recruiting Boards in time to permit of the completion


of medical examination and other preliminaries to enlistment by 30th September will not on that account be regarded as ineligible for an award on the completion of their service with the Forces.

Awards for training which are at present administered by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and for which comparable financial provision is not available, will continue to be made by that Ministry to those called up before 1st January, 1949, subject to the following restrictions:—

(a) awards will not be granted to applicants who could have obtained deferment of their calling up to enable them to complete their courses before begining their national service, and
(b) awards will be granted only to enable applicants to begin or complete courses in respect of which they can show prevention or interruption by their calling up. No award will be made to enable an applicant to change from a part-time to a full-time course.

Wool Textile Industry (Women Workers' Pay)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the need for attracting more women workers to the wool-textile industry, any negotiations have yet been made, and with what success, to give women men's rates of pay for equal work.

Mr. G. Isaacs: I am not aware of any such negotiations, which would, of course, be a matter for the two sides of the industry.

RETAIL PRICES (INTERIM INDEX)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet fixed the date for the introduction of the new Interim Index of Retail Prices as recommended by the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee.

Mr. Isaacs: The Government have decided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee, to introduce the new Interim Index of Retail Prices forthwith. The Technical Committee of this Advisory Committee which has been working out the detailed plans for utilising the information obtained by the 1937–38 Budgets

Inquiry has recommended that prices for the new Index should be collected on the Tuesday nearest the 15th of each month instead of the 1st of each month, as has been the practice with the existing Index. Accordingly, 17th June will be the base date of the new Index, which will then start at 100. On that day, also, prices will be collected for the last time for the purpose of the existing Cost-of-Living Index. On 15th July, and monthly thereafter, prices will be collected for the new Index only. The results of each calculation will be announced as soon as known and published in the next following issue of the "Gazette." Thus the calculation as at 15th July should be known about mid-August, and published in the August issue of the "Gazette." This will mean that any industries whose wage agreements contain provisions for adjustment according to movement of the existing Cost-of-Living Index will have something over two months in which to consider the question of amending those provisions. I would add that the Technical Committee to which I have referred will be issuing a final comprehensive report at an early date. In the meantime, for the information of all those interested, a leaflet has been prepared explaining, as simply as possible, the main difference between the new Interim Index of Retail Prices and the old Cost-of-Living Index. Copies are now available to Members in the Vote Office.

CIVIL SERVICE (OPEN RECONSTRUCTION COMPETITION)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many candidates entered for the Open Reconstruction Competition for the clerical class of the Civil Service in November, 1946, and how many were successful; what were the comparable figures for the limited competition for minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office in December, 1946; and what were the passmarks required for Sections 1 and 3 and Section 2 in each examination.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the discontent among members of the minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office, at what they consider to be unfair discrimination against themselves in these two examinations?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They should not have that feeling, because they have a chance of entering for the open competition, as well as the restricted competition. We must keep our promise to the ex-Service men who enter for the other one, and who have certain prior rights.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the Question, about the passmarks?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The passmarks were: Section 1: Civilian, 400; Service, 355; Section 2: 400 in each case. Section 3: Service, 355. For the limited competition the passmarks are higher, because Service candidates are not entering. The pass-marks are: Section 1: 435. Section 2: 465. Section 3: 435.

Captain John Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the percentage of failures, because my information is that it is over 50 per cent.?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is true of the limited competition. The number of candidates entering was 5,645, and only 751 passed.

Mr. James Callaghan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of candidates who present themselves, for the open competition and their quality, are sufficiently good to preserve the standards in the Civil Service?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: An examination is set to give a standard which, we hope, will give us the kind of candidate we want.

Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the high standard demanded in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend discuss this matter further with the Civil Service Commissions, because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I realise that. These people have the chance of entering for the open competition, as well as the rather harder limited competition.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not the case that the proportion of vacancies in the clerical grade, which are allocated to be

filled from various sources of recruitment, is agreed by the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, which is representative of both sides?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is so, and not only by the Whitley Council, but also by this House.

Following is the information:


CLERICAL CLASS OPEN RECONSTRUCTION COMPETITION, NOVEMBER, 1946.


Number of candidates entered, 7,521. Number successful, 3,826.




Section I.
Section II.
Section III.


Passmarks:






Civilian
…
400
400
—


Service
…
355
400
355

LIMITED COMPETITION, DECEMBER, 1946.


Number of candidates entered 5,645. Number successful, 751.




Section I.
Section II.
Section III.


Passmark
…
435
465
435

DEFACING WALLS, METROPOLITAN AREA

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen were sent on 3rd June to delete the words "Tinker's Palace" from a house in Beechcroft Road, Tooting; and what are the present instructions to the police with regard to the removal of slogans of this character from walls and buildings in the Metropolitan area.

Mr. Ede: The answer to the lust part of the Question is, "Four." No specific instructions about the removal of slogans have been issued by the Commissioner of Police.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Would the right hon. Gentleman use what influence he has to restrain Ministers of the Crown from making provocative and blasphemous statements, which are liable to lead to retaliation?

Mr. Ede: It is my duty, as being responsible for the Police, to see that the King's peace is preserved, and that when people break the law, as was done in this case, by defacing walls, that proper steps are taken to preserve the peace.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most objectionable Communist slogans have been painted on


the walls of Bayswater Road facing Kensington Gardens, and that they have been there for some time?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of the culprit in this case being a member of the Housewives' League?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the Minister confirm or deny the rumour that motorists passing this residence have developed the habit of giving two hoots?

MEETING, ROYAL ALBERT HALL (DISORDER)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police upon the disorders which arose at the Royal Albert Hall on the occasion of the recent meeting of the British Housewives' League.

Mr. Ede: I have received a report on this meeting, from which it appears that about half an hour after it started organised interruption of the speakers commenced. After this had been going on for some time, police, at the request of the organisers of the meeting, asked the interrupters to leave, and the majority did so. At a later stage an attempt by two members of the audience to gain access to the platform led to some disorder.

VISAS (SWISS CITIZENS)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been granted to Swiss citizens in the last three months to enable them to visit this country; and how many refused.

Mr. Ede: The last three months for which complete returns are available are February, March and April. During that period the number of visas for the journey to the United Kingdom granted in Switzerland was 5,223 and the number refused was 43.

LETTER BOMBS

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if evidence has been obtained to prove what body is responsible for sending letter

bombs recently to certain citizens in this country.

Mr. Ede: Police inquiries into this matter are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence to justify the present statements associating this with terrorist activities?

Mr. Ede: In the present state of the inquiries, I think that any information which I gave as to the line the investigators are pursuing might hinder their work.

CIVILIAN RESPIRATORS (COLLECTION)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange to have civilian respirators collected and the materials utilised for more useful purposes by the salvage organisation.

Mr. Ede: As many as practicable of the bulkier and specialised types of civilian respirators, which were not personal issues have been collected and these, with unissued stocks of all types, are being held in central storage as an emergency reserve. The salvage value of the materials of which these ordinary types are made would not, I am advised, justify special collection, and on balance it is preferable that these respirators should still remain entrusted to the custody of the public.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the probable nature of the next war, is it not a waste of time and labour to gather and store these objects.

Mr. Ede: I am not going to prophesy about the nature of the next war, or whether some of the horrors of the past may not be repeated if we had such a misfortune.

PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (REPORT)

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report


of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission, extracts from which were recently published in the Press, will be available.

Mr. Ede: Full provisional recommendations for England with the exception of the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, West Riding, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland will, I understand, be published tomorrow and a copy will be placed in the Library. The recommendations in respect of the English counties I have just named will be available next week and those in regard to Wales will follow at an early date.

Professor Savory: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ede: I will make inquiries as to when the proposals with regard to Northern Ireland will be available.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What about Scotland?

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Home Secretary say how it is that a statement was given to the Press two weeks before it was available to this House?

Mr. Ede: A copy of the recommendations was not given to the Press, but in view of the general interest in the overall arrangement the Commissioners decided to give to the Press the figures there would be in each of the new constituencies. The full recommendations will be much more detailed than the statement issued to the Press.

Captain Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether maps will be presented with the report showing the boundary alterations?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I hope that I shall not be accused of having an undue privilege, but I have seen the recommendations relating to the administrative County of London in which a map is included, and a map will also be included, I understand, with each of the other county reports.

Mr. Dumpleton: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that copies of the report would be available in the Library. Will they not be available to Members at the Vote Office, and will there not be an opportunity for discussion by Members of

this House before the recommendations are confirmed?

Mr. Ede: Hon. Members have no more right in this matter than the people who aspire to be Members. That was laid down in the last days of the last Parliament, when a somewhat similar situation arose with regard to the 25 new constituencies. The procedure followed will be that, after the publication of the recommendations there will be one month in which objections may be lodged by people who have the right to lodge such objections, and after that the Commissioners will consider the objections and submit a final report.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the right of objections, the period for which, I believe, is a month. As the report is being published in parts, can he say when the time will begin to run? Will it begin to run in respect of those parts published tomorrow, from tomorrow, and in respect of those published next week, from next week?

Mr. Ede: From the date of the publication of the part of the report referring to the particular constituency. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that when we had a similar report about a year ago, the various counties were dealt with over a much longer period of time than appears to be likely in this week and next.

Mr. Nicholson: When the right hon. Gentleman says "publication," does he mean publication in the sense that copies will be available at county halls, or publication in the local Press?

Mr. Ede: When the report is published —I am judging from the copies I have seen with regard to London—there will be a statement made with regard to each Metropolitan borough as to the places at which the document can be seen. Adequate publicity will be given as to those places, and persons interested will have the opportunity of inspecting both the report and the maps.

Mr. Maclay: To make the position clear, will the Home Secretary confirm that after the report of the public inquiries, if any, are known the Boundary Commission reports back to the Government, and the report will be made into a form of Bill which will be debated in that form in this House?

Mr. Ede: When the report is received, the Government will have to consider it, and judging by what happened in 1918—I am not going beyond that—the probability is that it will appear as a Schedule to a Representation of the People Bill, or some such Measure.

Mr. Cocks: Why cannot the report be published as a White Paper so that anyone can have it?

Mr. Ede: I will consider that. It certainly was not done at the end of the last Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Unoccupied Dwellings, Metropolitan Boroughs

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of unoccupied houses and flats in the Metropolitan boroughs of St. Marylebone, Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington and Westminster.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The figures are 1,341, 302, 1,568, 1,297, 1,564 respectively. Of the 6,072 houses 3,603 are either incapable of repair or not capable of economic repair in our present circumstances. Eight hundred and ninety-eight of them are under requisition, and either in course of repair or conversion plans are being prepared.

Mr. Sparks: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of these empty premises are fit for use as half-way houses and hostels for homeless families, who at the moment have to be accommodated in public institutions?

Mr. Bevan: A very large number of them would not be capable of that use, as my hon. Friend knows.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, as he is able to give the number of unoccupied houses, why his Department were unable a few weeks ago to give the number of occupied houses?

Mr. Bevan: With regard to requisitioned houses we are able to give the information, and it is in the monthly return.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman's Department said that they could not give me the figures.

Mr. Bevan: I will look into that, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that they are in the monthly return.

Homeless Families, London

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health how many families made homeless as a result of court orders are now accommodated in public assistance institutions in the London and Greater London areas.

Mr. Bevan: There are four such families, including two in the area of the London County Council.

Private Builders' Licences, Mangotsfield

Mr. Alpass: asked the Minister of Health why the Mangotsfield Urban Council has issued 126 licences to private builders for houses for sale, of which 72 have been completed, whereas only 16 to let have been completed under their own authority.

Mr. Bevan: The figure of 126 licences quoted by my hon. Friend should be reduced by 43 which have lapsed. The Council were in March, 1946, prohibited from issuing further licences without prior consent. They hope to have completed 156 Council houses by the end of the year.

Mr. Alpass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very great dissatisfaction has been caused in the district by this unfair allocation of licences to private builders, and in view of the very great need for houses in that district will he see that in future a fairer proportion of houses to let will be built by the local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: It is because the local authority had, in my view, exceeded their powers that I withdrew their powers to confer the licences. The number of licences for houses for sale out of the overall total for the country is rather less than one in five.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In order that the House can get a complete view of the situation referred to in this Question, could the Minister also give the number of houses started by the local authorities as well as the number of houses completed?

Mr. Bevan: That information is in the monthly return. It is really rather nonsense to issue these documents every month if hon. Members will not read and study them.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the Minister aware that that extremely discourteous reply altogether misses the point? Is he aware that all I was concerned to do was to assist him to give the House a picture of this situation while it has the matter in mind?

Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful for the hon. Member's offer of assistance, but he knows very well that there is no industry in this country, with the exception of the coal industry, about which more statistics have been given to the House over the last 20 months, and I am bound to say, even if it is discourteous, that the questions sometimes put to me from the other side of the House show that hon. Members do not read the returns when they are issued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: Before I deal with the Business for next week, will the House permit me to say with what very deep regret all of us, in all parts of the House, have noticed that it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to undergo an operation, and with what delight we have read that the operation has been a success? We all hope to see him back soon with his accustomed vigour, and that everything will be completely successful.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrison: The Business proposed to be taken next week is as follows:
On Monday, 16th June, and Tuesday, 17th June—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
On Wednesday, 18th June—Supply (5th Allotted day); Committee; Debate on Housing in Scotland.
On Thursday, 19th June—Supply (6th Allotted day); Committee; Debate on Foreign Policy in Europe.
On Friday, 20th June—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Emergency Payments) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
During the week it is hoped that there will be an opportunity to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Public Offices (Site) Bill; the Second Reading of the Probation Officers (Superannuation)

Bill, and to make further progress with the Penicillin Bill [Lords].

Mr. Eden: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening statement, which it will give me great pleasure to convey to my right hon. Friend who, I was glad to hear an hour or two ago, is going on very well after an excellent night.
As regards next week's Business, may I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman about Thursday, the subject for which has been put down at the Opposition's request as it is a Supply Day? Is he aware that we had it in mind that we would not on this occasion debate the administration of Germany, but rather foreign affairs in general, and we hoped it might be possible at a later date to make a day available for the problems of administration in Germany, so as not to confuse political issues with administrative questions.

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that any question of further Debate on Germany can, of course, be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to raise the question of Scottish affairs. We are to have one Supply Day for a Debate next week, and I gather only one further day will be available this Session for the discussion of Scottish business. That is not sufficient. In the last few weeks we have had issued a very important White Paper on the economic position of Scotland, and I think it is the desire of all Scottish Members to have a special day allotted by the Government to the discussion of that supremely important matter.

Mr. Morrison: It is quite customary—it is a matter for the Opposition—for two clays to be taken on Scottish Supply, and often for two subjects to be taken. The White Paper has been published as a matter of convenience to Scottish Members and for the information of the people of Scotland. There is no obligation on the Government to provide facilities to debate every White Paper that is issued, but it was understood right the way through that if a Debate were desired on the White Paper it would be taken on one or other of the Supply Days.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does not the Lord President remember that a day was given out of Government time for England, and


a day was given out of Government time for Wales? Surely, a day ought to be given out of Government time for Scotland? May I further ask him to reconsider this matter, because this White Paper involves a large number of Departments and is not a suitable subject for a Supply Day. Furthermore, if the Opposition were to devote one of the two Scottish Supply Days to this White Paper, it would mean that there would be no discussion this year at all of the very important matters of Scottish education, Scottish agriculture, or Scottish fisheries. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give Scotland a little more of a show than he has sometimes given in the past.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is all wrong about his facts. The three days' Debate on the economic situation was about the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members were perfectly free to put the situation about Scotland as were Welsh Members about Wales, and I am sure they did so. The Welsh day was specially given because Wales has no Estimates at all that can be debated, and, therefore, in some way some special provision ought to be made. I think it is for the representatives of Scotland themselves to make up their minds about the use that can be made of the two Supply Days customarily given to Scotland; I am sure they appreciate that the publication of the White Paper gives a lot of valuable information about the economic situation in Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of suspending the Rule for an hour or so next Thursday, to allow a few more back benchers to speak?

Mr. Morrison: I should like to meet my hon. and gallant Friend, but during the week some minor Measures have to be taken, and it may be that some of them will have to be taken at night so I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking about the matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Returning to the subject of Scottish Business, the right hon. Gentleman said that the previous White Paper was a United Kingdom matter and that, therefore, we as Scottish Members could have discussed matters affecting Scotland. A White Paper in regard to Scotland we knew

was to come out in the near future, and we held our fire until we knew what was in that White Paper. Because the previous Debate was a United Kingdom one does not seem to me to be a reason why we should be debarred from having a Scottish day, especially as the White Paper which is published discusses Scottish affairs.

Mr. Morrison: I was not here, but my recollection is that Scottish Members did take part in the Debate as I think they usually do on United Kingdom topics as they have every right to do. As regards the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) I would give this hint to him—and he can follow it or not as he chooses—that he should try to persuade the leaders of his party on the Front Bench opposite themselves to choose a third Supply Day in respect of Scotland.

Mr. McKinlay: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is under an obligation to the 37 Scottish Labour Members, and that we resent the suggestion that it should be left to our opponents to provide a day to discuss Scottish affairs.

Mr. Morrison: In my capacity as Leader of the House I have got obligations to the whole House, and I have to do things as best I can, but I see my hon. Friend's point. This right of choosing the subject of Debate on a Supply day is a traditional right of the Opposition, and I think it is right from the Parliamentary point of view as they are the minority and this is a means of challenging the executive administration of the Government of the day.

Mr. David Eccles: Will the Government give a day to debate the statement on equal pay?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is necessary.

Mr. Warbey: Reverting to Thursday's Debate on foreign policy, I cannot, of course, interfere with any ideas the official Opposition may have on the subject, but I wonder if the Leader of the House will take into account the need to have as soon as possible a Debate on the dollar situation, or in other words a Debate on foreign economic policy, which I do not think we have really had. We ought to have it fairly soon.

Mr. Morrison: I think it would be premature at the moment.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Leader of the House not consider if it is necessary to suspend the Standing Order for Wednesday, because it might be that very many Scottish Members would want to participate in that Debate.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the Leader of the House consider giving a day to discussing the recent Select Committee Estimates Report on Development Areas and then perhaps Scottish Members would say what they want to say on Scottish industry?

Mr. Morrison: I will be frank with the House. I cannot see any spare days knocking about at the moment because of the Business we have in hand.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am sorry to have to press this Scottish matter but I must refer to it again as it is important for us. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the economic situation in Scotland is much worse proportionately than in England, and that all Members of all parties in Scotland are experiencing the gravest concern? The question of the economic White Paper is not one that could be suitably brought up on any of the two Supply Days, and even if it were brought up on such an occasion we would thereby neglect one or more of the half dozen major topics which every Government in the past has given this House an opportunity to discuss. Is it that the real object of the Government is to neglect Scottish affairs?

Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate the political tactics which are being followed by the hon. Gentleman, and it really does not worry me. If the hon. Gentleman feels so deeply about the economic situation in Scotland, that is all the more reason why a second Supply Day should be used for the purpose.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (MISSING BOOKS)

Earl Winterton: I desire to bring a matter to your notice, Mr. Speaker, affecting this House, and I would ask if you have any comment to make upon it. On 15th May of this year the following letter was issued, as I understand with the approval of the Library Committee and the Librarian, headed "Return of Books to the Library":

By means of a subscription taken out with Harrods Library, the Library of the House of Commons is able to obtain such current publications as are not permanently acquired by it. Of the books thus borrowed during the last six months, one half are missing, and it will not be possible to continue the subscription unless they are returned. It would be very much appreciated if you would return any books on the attached list, which may happen to be still in your possession.
The only comment that I would make upon the matter at this juncture is that it discloses a serious state of affairs concerning this House. I have made inquiries in the appropriate semi-official quarter, that is from the, Librarian and from the hon. Gentleman who is Chairman of the Library Committee, and I understand that since this document was issued only five books have been returned. I have also been informed, though I have been asked by the appropriate semi-official authorities not to disclose the actual figure, that there has been a very grievous loss' during last year of the periodicals from the Library. The serious point about this is that the missing books would presumably have to be compensated for out of the public purse. I would submit it is not the amount but the principle involved which is so serious. It may well be that you, Mr. Speaker, will not feel it right to make any comment upon the matter until there has been an inquiry through the usual methods of procedure into the matter. In that event, I will direct the question to the Leader of the House and ask for a Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the whole matter.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement. I would remind hon. Members that I placed a notice in the Library drawing their attention to the continued disappearance of books and periodicals belonging to it. The rate of their departure caused me some concern. Since the posting of that notice, further inquiries have been made, and I can now inform the House that the number of books acquired by the Library, which have disappeared, has fallen considerably. The last check carried out in April showed that out of a total of 554 newly purchased volumes, eleven were missing, or 2 per cent. This compares favourably with the loss of 5 per cent. noted before I placed the notice to which I have referred in the Library.
On the other hand, the loss of borrowed books, provided on a subscription taken


out with a lending library, as distinct from books permanently acquired, has of late increased to such an extent that it was found necessary to send all hon. Members the circular letter to which the right hon. Member refers, and of which the terms were approved by the Chairman of the Library Committee. Hon. Members should be aware from notices posted in the Library that all books borrowed from it and taken away, should be signed for on cards provided for the purpose. While I have no doubt that the great majority of hon. Mem-follow this rule, there are evidently some who do not—hence these losses. Should they continue, it will, I think, be my reluctant duty to suspend subscriptions taken out with lending libraries, for I must remind hon. Members that all losses have to be met out of public funds.

HUNGARY (POLITICAL SITUATION)

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the situation in Hungary. As the House was informed on 9th June His Majesty's Government have been awaiting further information about the recent happenings in Hungary, which have caused grave anxiety in this and other countries. Accordingly, we instructed His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to discuss the whole position with M. Molotov, the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs, and if possible to obtain from him a clarification of Soviet policy towards Hungary. Our Ambassador was instructed to point out that under the Armistice Agreement the Soviet Government recognised the right of His Majesty's Government to share in the control of Hungary during the Armistice period. It was further provided under the Statutes of the Allied Control Commission that the United Kingdom representative should have the right "to receive copies of all communications, reports and other documents which might interest His Majesty's Government." Despite this the British and American Representatives have so far failed even to obtain copies of the documents recently communicated by the Soviet chairman of the Commission to the Hungarian Government without their knowledge, and which led to the resignation of the former Hungarian Prime Minister.
M. Molotov, in reply to these inquiries, said that our desire for knowledge in these matters constituted an interference in Hungarian internal affairs. That further he was not prepared to admit our contention that as one of the Powers represented on the Allied Control Commission we were thereby given a right to the information for which we had asked. Accordingly M. Molotov refused to give any details of the situation but maintained that the policy of the U.S.S.R. was to refrain from interference in Hungarian internal affairs. These misrepresentations and inaccuracies, as the House is aware, have already been rebutted in another place. His Majesty's Government regret our Ally's response to our inquiries. For it was because His Majesty's Government desired to avoid


possible misunderstandings, that information was sought. We made no accusations against our Ally. We were asking for information of what was happening in Hungary in order that His Majesty's Government might form a just and accurate opinion on the position. My right hon. Friend is surprised and greatly regrets that our proper and measured inquiries should have been met with accusations that they constituted a renewed attempt on our part to interfere in Hungarian internal affairs. Because we are co-signatories to the Armistice Agreement, and because also of our Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Government, we shall continue to press both our Ally and the Hungarian Government for the full information on developments in Hungary, to which we are entitled.

Mr. Eden: I think that the House will have heard the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made with concern and with regret, but also, I think, with general approval of its tenor. If I may be allowed to do so I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for negotiating the armistice terms which are now under discussion, just three brief questions. First of all, was it not as the result of that armistice agreement that the Allied Control Commission was set up, and should not all information have been made available to that Commission without any request by any of the Governments who were members? May I further ask him on that issue whether in Italy, where the arrangements were precisely the same as those in Hungary except that we were the major party whereas in Hungary we are the minor party, we did not in fact consistently furnish such information and never refused any information for which we were asked? If my assessment of these matters is right, may I also ask him to convey to the Soviet Government on behalf of everyone in this country that, however strongly we desire friendly relations with them, disrespect of engagements we have entered into in good faith in the past years must shake confidence between Allies, and that that is a factor which we in this country would regret but which we cannot fail to note?

Mr. McNeil: I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon the restrained manner in which he has addressed him-

self to this matter. The answer to the three questions which he has put to me
is, "Yes" in each case. In Hungary, however, the Soviet have been in the chair, but under an Article—I think Article 6C—it is expressly provided that, automatically and without request, all relevant documents should be made available to all the elements of the Commission. That, of course, was the pattern of the agreement which we followed in Italy without offence or departure.

Mr. John E. Haire: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is to be regretted that there has been considerable misrepresentation on the part of Press correspondents and others in reporting the events in Hungary of the last few days? In view of the fact that this present situation has arisen out of the resignation in exile of M. Nagy, the former Prime Minister, is it, not highly desirable that we should seek full information from him by every possible means, and is it not somewhat curious that in seeking to obtain support from the British Government the ex-Prime Minister of Hungary should have written to Lord Vansittart for his support? Would my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that in Hungary there is not also considerable pressure from Fascist elements, particularly the right wing of the Smallholders Party, which, unfortunately leads to reciprocal action from the Left? In seeking full information with regard to the Hungarian situation from our representative there, will my right hon. Friend call for evidence of these Right Wing activities in Hungary?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, His Majesty's Government are bound under the agreement to co-operate in preventing the arising of any Fascist elements, and one of the means prescribed under the agreement was the availability of all relevant documents. It would, therefore seem inappropriate that we should address ourselves to the former Hungarian Prime Minister when machinery and official documents are available. As to the Press, I am certainly not prepared to subscribe to the assertion that they have misrepresented the situation, but if the documents had been available there would have been no need for the Press correspondents to speculate upon the situation. As to the statement by Lord Vansittart, no one deprecates more than my right hon. Friend


the number of unofficial Foreign Secretaries we have to put up with.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Tildy, a former student of the Queen's University of Belfast, was induced to remain in his present position only by the threat of deportation to Russia acording to the statement of his own Prime Minister?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, on this subject as on the other related subjects, I prefer to have the facts.

Major Cecil Poole: Since attempts are being made to besmirch the name of the late Prime Minister of Hungary without any full knowledge of the facts on either side, and since it has been alleged that he fled the country in order to escape arrest, may I be permitted to say, as one who was with him on the evening before he left, that he disclosed to me quite freely and frankly that he was going to Switzerland for a fortnight's holiday? Might I ask the Minister if it is not correct that Hungary is now functioning as a complete police State and that the police do not belong to the Fascists or the Right?

Mr. McNeil: I certainly think it is true that there are two of these political police forces operating in Hungary, neither of which I approve of, and neither of which I know to be associated with the Right.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: If very reasonable requests to Moscow are not complied with, will the right hon. Gentleman consider referring the whole matter to the United Nations organisation, particularly in view of the fact that a number of counter-charges have been made against this country?

Mr. McNeil: I do not want in any way to seem to be minimising our anxiety on this subject but I hope that I shall not be pressed even by my hon. Friend to affirm what action is contemplated, because until we know the facts we do not know what action is seemly, appropriate and legal.

Mr. Wadsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was reported to me in Budapest in May, 1946, that these circumstances would arise on 1st May this year and that events have proved that my information was accurate on that occasion 12 months ago?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the questions which have been put from the Opposition, I want to ask if it is not the case that this was a Government crisis which was solved—[Interruption.]—and solved with the least possible trouble? Have we not the glaring fact before us that this Prime Minister telephoned his resignation from abroad and left others to carry on? Why did he not go back? [Interruption.] I do not care what anyone says. Any man with courage and with a clear conscience would go back to his own country and face his accusers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I ask the Minister if it is not the case that in going back to his own country to face his accusers—

Professor Savory: He would have been deported to Russia.

Mr. Gallacher: —he would have had the support not only of this country, but of every other country to ensure that he got fair treatment?

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to be drawn into controversy, but I must point out that a colleague of this former Prime Minister has been in prison since February, despite the representations of this Government, without a charge being preferred against him. Moreover, I cannot deny that this political crisis has been solved with great speed and great thoroughness. That was a facility which Hitler displayed.

Mr. Gallacher: I have been in prison several times and I would go again rather than run away.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the interests of Anglo-Soviet friendship, to point out to the Soviet authorities that their failure to produce evidence in accordance with their obligations under the Control Statutes will force most people to draw the worst conclusions possible, even worse than they ought to be?

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the House and the Soviet Government will appreciate that we have acted with the maximum restraint here. We are not seeking a quarrel. We are seeking the facts and legal methods. I hope that even at this stage the Soviet Government will be so persuaded.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his moderation combined with firmness in the


statement he has made, would he not agree that it is a great pity that other parties involved in this matter did not show the same restraint instead of rushing in with charges that this matter was an outrage before ever they had made any request for information or had any evidence at all?

Mr. McNeil: I am responsible for the activities of this Government. I find that quite sufficient.

Mr. Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give the House about cognate happenings in Bulgaria?

Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend make a further effort with the authorities in Moscow and press for the early trial of Bela Kovacs out of whose arrest most of these events have arisen?

Mr. McNeil: I have indicated that we will continue to press for information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 104.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mort, D. L.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Moyle, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, C. W
Mulvey, A.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Attewell, H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Ayles, W. H
Goodrich, H. E.
Oldfield, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Oliver, G. H


Bacon, Miss A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Grey, C. F.
Parker, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Battley, J. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Pearson, A.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W)
Gunter, R. J.
Peart, Thomas F.


Bechervaise, A. E
Guy, W. H.
Piratin, P


Benson, G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Berry, H.
Hall, W. G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Beswick, F.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Proctor, W. T


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pryde, D. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hardy, E. A
Randall, H. E.


Binns, J.
Harrison, J.
Ranger, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rankin, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hicks, G.
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hobson, C. R.
Richards, R.


Bramall, E. A
Holman, P.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brook, D (Halifax)
House, G.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Hoy, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Hodson, J. M (Ealing W.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C)
Sharp, Granville


Buchanan, G
Irving, W. J
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Silverman, S S. (Nelson)


Byers, Frank
Janner, B.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Callaghan James
Jay, D. P. T.
Skinnard, F. W


Carmichael, James
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Castle, Mrs B. A
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Snow, Capt. J. W


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)
Solley, L. J.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Sorensen, R. W


Chater, D.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sparks, J, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Keenan, W.
Stamford, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, C.
Stephen, C


Cocks, F. S
King, E. M
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Coldrick, W.
Kinley, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collindridge, F
Kirby, B. V.
Stross, Dr. B.


Collins, V. J.
Kirkwood, D.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Corbet, Mrs. F. K, (Camb'well, N.W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Swingler, S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lee, F (Hulme)
Sylvester, G O


Cove W. G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Symonds, A. L.


Crawley, A.
Levy, B. W
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)


Cunningham, P
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lyne, A W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McAdam, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
McKinlay, A. S.
Tolley, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, F
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Dodds, N. N.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Usborne, Henry


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Viant, S. P.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Marquand, H. A.
Wadsworth, G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Martin, J. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst


Edelman, M.
Mathers, G.
Warbey, W N.


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Medland, H. M.
Watkins, T. E.


Fairhurst, F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Watson, W. M.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Field, Captain W. J.
Mitchison, G. R
Weitzman, D.


Fellick, M.
Monslow, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fool, M. M.
Moody, A. S
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
West, D G




Westwood, Rt. Hon. J
Williams, W R. (Heston)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Willis, E.



Willey, F. T (Sunderland)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Woods, G. S
Mr. Simmons and


Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wyatt, W.
Mr. Popplewell.


Williams, J (Kelvingrove)
Yates, V F





NOES.


Amory, D, Heathcoat
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air Cmdre. A. V
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. F


Baxter, A. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir O
Prescott, Stanley


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt. -Col. D. C (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Hope, Lord J
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Savory, Prof. D. L


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hurd, A
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W)
Snadden, W. M.


Bullock Capt. M
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Spence, H. R.


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Channon, H
Lambert, Hon G
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col O E
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (p'dd't'n, S)


De la Bère, R
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Digby, S. W
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)
MacLeod, J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Drayson, G B
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marlowe, A. A. H
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fletcher, W (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fox, Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S (C'no'ster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Grimston, R. V
Neven-Spence, Sir B



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

4.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 5, page 6, line 26; Clause 13, page 14, line 16; Clause 13, page 15, line r; Clause 13, page 15, line 17; Clause 13, page 16, line 2; Clause 13, page 16, line 6; Clause 18, page 18, line 43; Clause 26, page 24, line 6; Clause 26, page 24, line 12; Clause 26, page 24, line 14 and Schedule 5, page 44, line 5, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Ede.
It is necessary to recommit the Bill in order that I may carry out some of the undertakings I gave to the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, line 25, and Clause 13, page 15, line 16, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Grimston.

Colonel Wheatley: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have no objection, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that, while I agree to these Amendments being discussed, I cannot give an assurance that I shall accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Symonds: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 24, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Symonds.

Mr. David Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I do not resist this Amendment on the same understanding as on the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bing: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 26, page 24, line 39, and Clause 26, page 25, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot second this Amendment; he has already spoken to the Motion.

Mr. John Beattie: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I do not resist this Amendment on the same understanding.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary powers of fire authorities.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(f) to employ the fire brigade if requested so to do by the Health Committee of the local authority in running the local authority's accident ambulance service and in that event to have full responsibility for that service.
I do so chiefly to find out the present position with regard to this matter, having regard to the discussion which we had in Committee on the running by the fire brigade of the accident ambulance service if requested to do so by the health committee. During our discussion in Committee the Home Secretary said that the spirit of the Amendment was accepted, and that between then and the Report stage he would look into the question of making an appropriate Amendment to the Bill.
Under Clause 3 (1, e) the powers of the fire authority are to include power to call up the fire brigade maintained by them for purposes other than fire-fighting. Subsection (3) provides that before making any standing arrangements for the exercise of powers conferred by that paragraph, they shall obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed arrangements. That would cover the provision of ambulance services by the fire authority. In Committee we were all agreed that it was desirable, because in many cases it led to speed and economy in manpower, that the ambulance services should be run by the fire authority. That being so, it seems to us that, where it is


desired by the local authority, they should be able to do it under the terms of the Bill without having to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. As I say, the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would consider this matter. He accepted the principle of the Amendment and I now give him the opportunity of telling us how the matter stands.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I wish to support the Amendment. I had some correspondence with the Home Secretary some months ago on this point, when the Bill was first printed. In my area, when we ran our own fire brigade, we found it most convenient to have the fire brigade also running the ambulance service. It was also an economy I agree that the case is probably covered by Clause 3 (1, e) but I ask the Home Secretary to make this point clear beyond any shadow of doubt.

Mr. Ede: I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this matter again. Since we had the discussion upstairs, I have had further negotiations with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, and also with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, whose Department will also be involved, as the ambulance services are part of the health services. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Health have been engaged in negotiations on these matters with those associations. I think all parties are anxious that there shall be economy of manpower and appliances, and also economy in the giving of Governmental consent which I regard as quite as important as the other objects.
In the consultations which have taken place between the Minister of Health and myself, there has been general agreement that these two services should be combined, but we have not yet reached complete agreement as to the precise form which the combination should take. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is issuing to local authorities a circular under Section 20 of the National Health Service Act in which he will ask that the proposals of national health authorities in regard to ambulances shall be submitted to him for approval by the 30th of this month. When he receives those schemes, he will go into them, and my Department will also be consulted. I do not expect that the final arrangements will be

the same in every area. There will be some areas where there are no local fire stations with firemen continuously employed, and it may be that a very different arrangement may have to be made there from that in the county borough represented so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I have no doubt we shall find that the arrangements will vary.
The primary responsibility for the ambulance services rests on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. We hope that it will be possible in the great majority of cases to arrange that the fire services personnel will be available to drive and to man the ambulances. In order to avoid duplication of consent, I am proposing at at a later stage this afternoon, in an Amendment to Clause 3, page 4, line 45, to add at the end, with regard to these standing arrangements that they shall obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed arrangement:
unless they have been approved by the Minister in charge of any other Government Department.
That will mean that if the Minister of Health gives his sanction to any scheme of amalgamating the fire brigade and ambulance service, it will not be necessary for a separate approach to be made to my Department, and a second consent to be sought. Of course it will be arranged that before he gives his consent in any case he will notify me that he proposes to do so. I hope that hon. Members will feel that the explanation I have given enables the existing machinery in the Bill to operate so that duplication will be avoided, and that in the circumstances the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: There is a distinction in the ambulance services. This Amendment applies particularly to accident ambulances, which provide quite a different service in many respects from the full ambulance service which is to be operated under the Health Services Act by the county authorities. That has no need to be associated so closely with the fire service. Whatever arrangement is come to, it should be understood that powers will be given to have them carried out by the fire service quite distinct from the ordinary ambulance service which hospitals employ, and which is not required for the same emergency need as accidents.

Colonel Wheatley: As the Minister explained, we cannot lay down any absolute rule for a local authority because they are not all the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) described, the hospitals have an ambulance service, but in many cases hospitals are dependent on the town ambulance service. The Minister's suggestion carries out what we want in this Amendment. He realises that we cannot lay down any definite regulations for every ambulance service throughout the country.

Mr. Ede: I have been associated with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam {Mr. S. Marshall) in the government of Surrey for many years, and it is something new for me to be replying at this Box to the chairman of Surrey County Council. Many people have replied to me from this Box, and now I begin to understand how comfortable a feeling it is to reply to a chairman of a county council. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) should be borne in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) spoke in regard to a county borough, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam speaks for a county which is considerably, but not completely urbanised. The hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset has spoken for a county that is even less urbanised than Surrey, though part of his constituency, the borough of Poole, is itself fully urbanised. It would be very difficult indeed to put into the Bill words which would enable us to cover the elastic kind of arrangement that must be made to deal with such diverse conditions. I hope the words which I propose to insert in page 4 will prevent duplication of applications to Government Departments, and I hope that the general words in the Bill, in the light of the negotiations which we have had with the local authority associations, and with the Ministry of Health, will enable us to meet all the points that have been raised in the discussion this afternoon.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. I presume that it any points occur in reply to the circular which is going out from the Ministry of Health,
opportunity will occur in another place to embody anything that is necessary. It seems to me

that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce later covers the point which we have in mind, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(County and county borough councils to be fire authorities.)

Mr. Symonds: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, at the end, to insert:
Where, on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the population of a non-county borough, as estimated by the Registrar General, exceeded one half of the population of the administrative county comprising the borough as so estimated, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the borough as if it were a county borough, and references in this Act to county boroughs and to non-county boroughs shall be construed accordingly.
When my right hon. Friend reads the wording of this Amendment I hope he will recognise his own child, because it is exactly the same as the wording of Section 17 (1) of the Police Act, which was inserted by my right hon. Friend in that Act in 1946. The provision applies only to two non-county boroughs in the country. It is so drawn up that no others can qualify under this Clause. These two are Peterborough and Cambridge. Both of these non-county boroughs happen to be greater in population than the balance of the counties in which they are situated, so that were they, as non-county boroughs, to surrender their powers to the county council, it would mean that the greater authority was being absorbed in the smaller. During the progress of the Police Act, my right hon. Friend recognised this point and 'allowed for it. In Standing Committee he used these words, speaking of Cambridge and Peterborough:
In those two cases I am making special arrangements to deal with the peculiar position presented by the fact that at the moment the borough has more than half the population of the county."—[Standing Committee B, 24th January, 1946; c. 706.]
If, in the Police Act, it was found desirable to make special provision when this kind of situation occurred, I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise the justice of making a similar provision now.
I hope that he will not argue in relation to Cambridge that the Police Act is not


an exact parallel. I hope that he will not bring in the University, and say that special arrangements were made in regard to Cambridge in the Police Act because of the existence of a large undergraduate population with special disciplinary arrangements. The case made on the Police Act, which I am repeating here, is embodied in Clause 17 (1) of the Act, and of course Peterborough qualifies as well. There is no university at Peterborough, and the essential part of the case is that the non-county borough is greater than the rest of its county.
There may be a certain amount of argument as to the exact relative figures. The last official ones we had are the Registrar General's estimate in June, 1939, which gave the borough a superiority of several thousands. Whatever the figures are now, there is another vital factor, which is that even now the borough is paying about two-thirds of the county rate. The changes promulgated in this Bill, if not amended, would mean that the authority paying two-thirds of another authority's rates would surrender completely all its powers to that other authority with regard to this service. For years past the borough of Cambridge has "fire serviced" the county, so to speak, and there has never been any question of the county or the county districts relying on their own resources.
If my right hon. Friend asks whether, if the borough is given the equivalent of county borough status, the balance of the county will be able to provide such services for itself, my reply is that that is not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is the fairly obvious one that there should be a combination scheme of some kind, as there was under the Police Act, so that the two authorities, roughly equal in numbers, should be given representation on that authority more in proportion to their strength, and it should not be the case of the larger authority disappearing inside the smaller. During the Third Reading Debate on the Police Act, my right hon. Friend said that he had had to see the representatives of the borough and of the county separately, because he understood that had they been assembled in one room it would have required more than the combined police authority to keep the peace.

Mr. Ede: More than the combined police force.

Mr. Symonds: There must be some basis for that feeling. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises the feeling inside that non-county borough, which, larger in numbers and paying two-thirds of the county rate, steadily sees its powers passing one by one to that county, and out of its own control.

Earl Winterton: Will not that position be considered under the new proposals now being considered in relation to the redistribution of local government boundaries?

Mr. Symonds: The whole question at local government boundaries in that area is very much in the melting pot. There are claims and counter-claims from all sides, and what the final decision will be one cannot say. The Amendment which I am moving would preserve some sort of balance between the powers of these respective authorities, and would prevent this anomalous situation of the larger surrendering its powers to the smaller. The principle has already been accepted in regard to the police, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will see, his way to accept the same arrangement in regard to the fire service.

Mr. Ede: It is true that I recognise the countenance of this child. It is a twin, because I was responsible also for inserting the same words in the Education Act. 1944. Hon. Members may have seen that yesterday a gentleman in Haifa was informed that his wife had given birth to quadruplets, and he said that he could not stand this mass production, he could not afford such luxuries. I have consented to twins, but I jib at triplets. Let us face the fact that the fire service is a very different one from the police in its administration. My hon. Friend misstates the situation. Cambridge borough is a part of the county of Cambridge. It is a non-county borough. This is not the case of the lesser absorbing the greater. It is the fact that Cambridge is not a fire authority at the moment, and in the new layout of the fire services we have to consider what is the best arrangement for the area. My hon. Friend said that there never has been a, fire station anywhere in the county of Cambridge outside the non - county borough of Cambridge. That is the place where most of the fires, especially those deliberately started, have occurred. Forty


years ago I took some part in starting one or two. It is too long ago now for me to be brought up for them—and other people were caught.
Outside the non-county borough, there are only eight part-time stations, even under the National Fire Service. It is clear that while the boundaries remain as they are, the county of Cambridge must get its fire service from the non-county borough. Adequate services from the eight part-time stations, or such other number as the Cambridge County Council choose to have, must be organised from the centre of Cambridge. This Bill differs in its local government provision from either the Education Act or the Police Act. I will discuss it on the assumption that the New Clause, (Fire brigade committees in counties), which I have put on the Order Paper will be adopted. I propose there, in order to meet this and similar situations, that the county council shall have a majority on the fire brigade committee. On the Cambridge County Council there is a substantial number of members representing the borough. It is safe to assume that some at least of those members will get on to the fire brigade committee. The county district councils, including the non-county borough of Cambridge, will have the right of appointing certain persons to sit on the fire brigade committees. Therefore, I think 'it is fairly safe to say that a very substantial proportion of the fire brigade committees will consist either of representatives of Cambridge borough on the county council—they will get on by appointment by the county council—or of representatives of this large non-county borough which has more than half the population of the whole county.
In that way, I think they should get quite adequate and sufficient representation on the committee which will be responsible for organising the fire brigade. That is not the position under the Police Act where, had the ordinary law applied to Cambridge, a very different situation would have arisen and the Cambridge town council would have had no right to appoint any member to sit on the police authority for the county. I am disappointed at the very slow rate of progress which has been made under the Police Act. I do not want to say more than that. The very generous arrange-

ments I made in the matter have not proved acceptable to those two authorities—the county council and the non-county borough—and I cannot contemplate leaving the fire service in the same state of suspense.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: Surely my right hon. Friend recognises that the cause of the delay in the police arrangements is the complete uncertainty in regard to future local government boundaries and the status of the borough in relation to the county?

Mr. Ede: Precisely the same excuse could be pleaded if I advanced the non-county borough of Cambridge to county borough status for the purpose of this Bill. Exactly the same argument could be used. One cannot contemplate leaving the county in that position. As a result of the concessions I have made owing to our discussions in Committee, the local government set-up under this Bill is different from the set-up under the other two Measures. When the scheme for the county is prepared, both Cambridge and Peterborough will have the right to make representations to me if they are not satisfied. I say frankly that I could not contemplate having two fire brigades, one for Cambridge non-county borough and one for Cambridge county, one for the City of Peterborough and one for that part of the Soke of Peterborough not within the city boundaries. The county brigade, in both cases, would have no centre from which to work. I could not contemplate allowing such a state of affairs to exist.
I hope my hon. Friend will feel that the new Clause which I have placed on the Order Paper completely alters the local government set-up. It is one which the non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts, and the county have been willing to accept. I think it adequately covers the situation created for the present by the position of Cambridge and Peterborough in boroughs in which they represent more than half the population.

Mr. Symonds: I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear that I did not suggest for one moment that there should be two separate fire authorities. All I suggested was that an arrangement, which had Worked very well, should continue. He has said that for an indefinite period of time the fire brigade must be run from


and be stationed in the borough of Cambridge. If that is so, why not leave its control and management in the hands of those people who, in the past, have run it very effectively?

Mr. Ede: Because the county council under this Bill becomes a fire authority and it was not under any previous legislation. The non-county borough of Cambridge is a part of the county of Cambridge, at any rate until local government boundaries are revised. The previous arrangements were not made with the county. They were made with the adjoining rural district councils or, before the Act of 1938, I have no doubt they were made with the parish councils. The situation is entirely altered by the creation of the county council as a fire brigade authority and by the local government arrangements I introduce in the new Clause which is on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish to support the Amendment. Indeed, I would like to go a good deal further, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, I feel very strongly about the position of the large non-county boroughs, including the borough of Accrington which I represent. The position of the non-county boroughs is rather anomalous. There are some very small boroughs, and I do not think that they could defend the various powers which they have had in the past. Then there are non-county boroughs like Cambridge, Peterborough and Accrington and certain others. There are not very many of substantial size. Some are as big as perhaps bigger than some of the old county boroughs, and yet they are deprived of their powers altogether by reason of the fact that Government Departments have decided that the units of administration must be purely county councils and county boroughs. I very greatly deplore that, I recognise the Home Secretary's point that fire, police and education services each need very different types of administration. That is, of course, a reasonable point, but I do feel that some consideration should be given to the comparatively small number of non-county boroughs of substantial size, such as Cambridge and Accrington.

Mr. Ede: I do not think anyone would suggest that Accrington possesses more than half the population of Lancashire.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the Home Secretary one question? He mentioned the non-county borough of Peterborough and the Soke of Peterborough, and said they were in a peculiar position vis-a-vis the county of Northampton.

Mr. Ede: I have not mentioned Northamptonshire.

Sir R. Glyn: But the right hon. Gentleman says that the county will be the fire authority in that area.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman should have been here the other morning when we were discussing Peterborough in relation to cinemas. There is the most extraordinary position in England here, where we have an administrative county smaller even than that of Rutland—the Soke of Peterborough. It is a county area, with a separate county council, and it will become the fire authority. Within that county is the city of Peterborough, which is a non-county borough sending members to sit on the Soke of Peterborough County Council. In that respect, it is exactly the same as Cambridge sending members to sit on the county council of Cambridgeshire. It is a quite distinct local government entity from the administrative county of Northampton, although it is included in the county of Northampton, and generally, is shown in the same colour on the maps of England. Nothing I have said this afternoon applies to Northamptonshire.

Sir R. Glyn: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I wanted to be clear that the Soke of Peterborough was being kept as a separate county and was not being merged in Northamptonshire.

Mr. Ede: No. I am not saying what the Local Government Boundary Commission will do, but, so far as this matter is concerned, it is an administrative county as much as the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Voluntary schemes for com bination of fire authorities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out from "incurred," to" as," in line 27, and to insert:
in connection with the provision of fire services.


Clause 5 (2, d) deals with the transfer of liabilities to a combined authority formed after the appointed day. As the Clause stands, it will be possible to transfer liabilities incurred under the Bill, but not any continuing liabilities that may have been incurred by the 1938 Act. This Amendment is necessary to enable liabilities such as these to be transferred to the new fire authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Transitional provisions.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 14, line 16, at the end, to insert:
and for the making, by any such authority to an authority which in pursuance of this paragraph is substituted therefor for the purposes of the last mentioned Act, of such payments in respect of liabilities thereunder transferred from the one authority to the other as may be so prescribed.
The object of this Amendment is to provide for the transfer of pension assets and any kind of rateable deduction in cases where a pensionable fireman is away serving in the Armed Forces at the appointed day, and, on returning, has to join a brigade which has absorbed the brigade in which he was formerly serving. Unless we are able to do this, the man will lose all his pension service and will be regarded as a raw recruit coming into the service, and I am quite sure that no one would desire that that should happen.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines i and 2, and to insert "or pension."
This is consequential on an Amendment made in the Committee upstairs, and it deals with the possible case of a former local authority employee who does not secure fresh employment on the appointed day. He may suffer not only the loss of his salary, but also the loss of his pension which he had expected to enjoy, and there should be power in assessing the compensation to have regard to this loss of pension.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 15, Line 16, after "employment," to insert: "in the National Fire Service."
This arises out of an inconclusive discussion which we had on the Committee stage. We consider that a man should be compensated on the basis of the rank which he attained in the National Fire Service, and not a rank—which might be lower—which he might have had in the fire brigade service before the war. We had a discussion on this point, and I think it was generally, agreed that it is reasonable to assume that, had a man spent the intervening period in his own brigade, instead of in the National Fire Service, he would have attained promotion and a higher rate of pay. In the Committee discussions, the Under-Secretary said that the point was not quite so simple as I had suggested because, in some cases, men in the National Fire Service who were taken over enjoyed higher rates of pay than in the service to which they belonged before they were taken over, and that, therefore, in these cases, the Amendment would operate in a manner detrimental to these men.
I am advised, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, that the point made by the Under-Secretary is not correct, because I understand that all those in the fire services who were transferred to the N.F.S. got what was known as "preserved pay," even if they were in a lower rank when transferred, so that it would appear that the grounds on which the Under-Secretary turned down this Amendment are not valid. Eventually I withdrew my Amendment on 'the understanding that we would raise this matter again at a later stage. Having regard to the information which I have received, I would suggest that, whatever the rate of pay may have been in the old fire service, if it was lower than that in the N.F.S., the man will benefit by the Amendment. I think that this is the intention of the Home Secretary, but we think that if he put it in the Bill it would be very much better, so that the compensation paid to the men is on the basis of their rank in the N.F.S. It seems to me that this Amendment should be accepted also in order to make the position quite clear.

5.0 p.m.

Colonel Wheatley: It is quite true that we had a long discussion on this matter upstairs in Committee, when the Under-Secretary of State undertook to convey our views to the Minister. We felt that a


man should not lose by coming into this new service, and that, as it would not affect many men, the Minister might be generous and give them the best of both worlds, whether they lost or gained by not getting promotion in their own service. If, as my hon. Friend explained, these men had their pay made up, the case is not so glaring as it appeared to be when we discussed it in Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment as being fair and doing justice to these men, which I am quite sure is what he would wish to do.

Mr. D. Jones: Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to raise one point. I understand that a number of men belonging to the administrative staff of the National Fire Service have been circularised by the chief regional officer with a memorandum dealing with transfer under this proposed legislation. Sections 3 and 4 of that memorandum say:
That they may be employed on duties not connected with the fire brigade and, in any case, will probably not be employed in a uniformed capacity.
That their remuneration will be in accordance with the grade of salary adopte4 by the local authority for the particular employment in which they will be engaged.
It seems to me that it might conceivably happen that they will be offered positions in local government service which are not commensurate with the positions they occupy in the National Fire Service at the present time. I should like to know whether, in those circumstances, provision will be made to compensate these people for loss of office, or whether it will be considered that the obligation to them will have been fulfilled if they are merely offered a job in local government service for less pay and under conditions worse than they enjoy at the moment.

Mr. Keenan: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether there is any obligation on the Home Office, or whoever is responsible for the fire services to maintain the positions which obviously came into being as the result of the National Fire Service, because it seems to me that many thousands of posts will now become redundant? Will men be compensated for loss in this connection?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepr, ols (Mr. D. Jones), I do not

think that matter arises on this Amendment, because the men concerned were not firemen before they were taken over, but were engaged on services connected with the Fire Service. Arrangements have been made with the local authority associations whereby those men will be returned to their appropriate employment in the service of the new fire authority, and will be able to use the particular skill that led to their transfer to the National Fire Service when the municipal services were nationalised at the beginning of the war.

Mr. D. Jones: They are a section of administrative officers in the National Fire Service who have been recruited to the Service since it came into operation.

Mr. Ede: But they do not come under this Amendment. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), I do not think that we shall be faced with the large redundancy of staff that he anticipates. I believe that. by the time we hand back the fire service, we shall have got down to about the appropriate establishment.
I want now to direct my observations to the remarks of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and of the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley). This is a very difficult and complicated matter. There is a class of person who was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Westbury, who, in fact, owing to something which happened in the National Fire Service, is now getting less than he was getting in the old service There are a few people in that position, and it would be better for those people to get what is called their preserved pay "rather than the National Fire Service pay They are people who have gone up the ladder and who have then gone down it rather further than the point at which they started in the Service.
I am very anxious, not that people should get the best of both worlds, because that is a promise which no politician can ever keep if he is foolish enough to make it, but to do something, which represents a little more generosity than justice. At the moment, I am hampered by the fact that the local authority associations are very reluctant to go beyond the preserved pay. They are the people who have to pay in these cases, and I have not finished my negotiations with


them. As was explained to the Committee upstairs, I propose to make regulations, and I hope that, by the time they are framed, I shall be able to do something that will enable me to deal with the case of the men who, in justice, would appear to be entitled to something more than their preserved pay in these matters. I hope to be able to include something in the regulations to secure that.
The regulations will have to be submitted to the House, and if I were to insert these words I might have the gravest difficulties with the National Fire Service over the whole range of our negotiations. I have given the Committee an indication of what is my own line in the matter, and, if when the time comes, the regulations do not conform with the wishes of the House, the House, will then have the opportunity of considering them, and of rejecting them if they are not in accordance with what it feels to be just. The issue is not a simple one, and cannot be stated as simply as the hon. Member for Westbury stated it this afternoon. It must be clear that when men from all sorts of local authorities, who have no standardised conditions of wages or hours, or anything like that, are brought into a national service, and are allowed to preserve the emoluments they previously received while holding the rank that they held at the time of transfer, and who are then transferred back to the municipalities, the position is bound to present complications.
I doubt whether prior to nationalisation any two fire services in the country had exactly the same conditions with regard to emoluments, hours of work and the other things that go to make up a contract of service. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to leave the matter at this stage. I have made known my mind and the mind of the Government in regard to it, and I hope that the Committee will leave us to carry on our negotiations with the local authorities, and to submit the regulations to the House when the new service has been constituted. If it will help hon. Members—I know it is complained that a good many regulations are made from time to time—I will undertake to communicate with the hon. Member for Westbury, and with any one else who may be closely associated with this matter, when I make the regulations so that they shall not merely slip through

because it was not noticed that they had been made before the 40 days had elapsed.

Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary. Do I understand that the purport of his remarks is that he is concerned about preserving the position, so that a man in certain circumstances may acquire a higher compensation than he would if these words were inserted in the Bill? That is really what it amounts to. It is to preserve for him a better compensation, which may be better than the N.F.S. rate, and that rate can only be the N.F.S. rate if this is put into the Bill.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary especially for what he said about the regulations. It will be obviously in the interests of the men themselves that I should beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(c) to persons who immediately before the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one were employed by a local authority, or engaged in war service (within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939) having left employment with a local authority to undertake such service, and immediately before the appointed day were employed for the purposes of the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, otherwise than as members of the National Fire Service, and who either—

(i) become employed on the appointed day by a local authority and suffer a reduction in emoluments in comparison with the emoluments determined by the regulations to be appropriate as aforesaid, or
(ii) do not on the appointed day become employed by a local authority."
This Amendment proposes to extend the compensation provisions in Subsection (6) to cover certain former local government employees. Some of the people for whom my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was concerned earlier on will come under it.
When the fire brigades were nationalised, many local authority clerks in the fire brigade offices of local authorities were transferred to the employment of the National Fire Service for similar clerical duties, but they did not become actual members of the National Fire Service. When the fire services return to local


authority control, these officers will return to local employment. Some of them were employees of county district authorities who will no longer be fire authorities. Anyone who was serving a non-county borough, such as Cambridge or Accrington, will, of course, not go back to those authorities. There may, nevertheless, be employment for them with the district authorities, or arrangements may be made for their transfer to the county councils. Should no suitable employment be available, however, or only employment at a lower salary, it may be right to pay compensation.
A similar position may arise as regards former local authority employees who were employed on duty in connection with fire brigades, but who had joined the Armed forces. On demobilisation some of those men have been taken into the employment of the National Fire Service which, so far as they are concerned, is the successor at the moment to their former localauthority employer, accepting the employer's obligations under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. These persons are covered in the Amendment. Usually, these local authority clerks have been paid by the National Fire Service at the rate of pay which they would have received if they had remained in local authority employment. Accordingly, no difficulty will arise in determining the appropriate emoluments for purposes of compensation. It is clear that we must include adequate provision to cover these people, and I am advised that the words now proposed will do it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up one point which occurs in line 8 of the Amendment. At the beginning of what will now become paragraph (c, i) are the words:
become employed on the appointed day by a local authority.
I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me precisely what is meant by "the appointed day" in this connection. It presupposes continuity of employment. The man is employed in one service. At a particular moment he becomes employed by a local authority. What would happen if he had a gap of a day or two, and if he were employed by the local authority a day or two after the appointed day? As I

understand from Clauses which appear later, "the appointed day" is a day appointed by the Secretary of State. The various references to an appointed day may refer to different days. I take it that the appointed day in the case I have mentioned is not the same appointed day as in Clause 2, which is a day that the Secretary of State may appoint under the appropriate paragraph. Otherwise, the position may be that if the man who is employed does not get re-employed immediately, he will not qualify under the Subsection as it stands.

Mr. Ede: I contemplate that the appointed day will be the same throughout the Bill. I do not think there will be any need for more than one appointed day. This is what will happen. The man is in the service of the National Fire Service at the moment as a clerk, or in some ancillary occupation, or as a fitter, or in connection with the vehicles. On the appointed day the National Fire Service will come to an end, and we hope that the man in question will go into the service of the fire authorities. There may be cases where the fire authority may not want to employ him because they have an adequate number of men of that qualification. He can be transferred, not necessarily to a fire authority, but to the service of a local authority.
The case which we have mainly in mind under the proposed new Subsection concerns the local authority which was previously a fire authority in a non-county borough, or urban and rural district, but will cease to be a fire authority under the Bill. If the man goes back to that service, his former service, or to the service of any local authority, whether it be his former local authority or not, and suffers a reduction in emoluments, he is entitled to compensation. It may be that the words proposed do not cover the case where the man is not wanted by the county council. Let us assume that the appointed day is 1st April, 1948, and that the man does not get back to a local authority until 8th April. That is the kind of case which the hon. and learned Member opposite has in mind. I fully intend that man to be covered. If he is not covered by these words, I will undertake to see that an appropriate Amendment is inserted in another place so that the man shall not be deprived of his rights merely because, in the shuffling that he has gone


through in the last six or seven years, he cannot just be fitted into the proper niche, but has to wait for a short time to get in. Where the continuity of employment is quite reasonable and can be traced, I will try to find words to cover the matter, if it is not covered by the words which I have proposed.

Mr. Marlowe: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will find that as the words stand at the moment, the man would have to be employed on the appointed day, so that I think it does require some amendment on the lines I have suggested. The same point occurs with reference to line 13, but as we have passed it, I cannot deal with it now.

Mr. D. Jones: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for having cleared up that part of the point, but I understand there are in the country 400 members of the administrative staff of the National Fire Service who were not previously employed by a local authority, but who have been recruited to the National Fire Service. Will my right hon. Friend explain what is to happen to those people? Will they be forced to accept employment of an inferior character with a local authority, or will their existing status be protected?

Mr. Ede: I am not sure that point arises on this Amendment, but I will have the position examined. If there should be any difficulty about it, and if those men have any rights, I will endeavour to see that the appropriate words are inserted.

Colonel Wheatley: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's hypothetical case of 1st April and 8th April, I would like to know who will pay the man during those eight days. Will he continue to be paid by the State, or who will be expected to pay him?

Mr. Ede: We are now getting rather beyond the subject of compensation. I hope we shall be able to find some way in which such a man could be transferred on the appointed day to the service of the new fire authority if it has not been possible to sort him out into some other job before. I will have that particular complication examined also.

Mr. S. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain on what basis compen-

sation will be paid to the class of persons mentioned for having had to accept a lower-paid post with the same local authority by whom they were previously employed? How long will that compensation last? It is conceivable that in a year a man might get a higher post with the same authority.

Mr. Ede: That matter will be dealt with in the regulations which will flow from the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 16, line 2, after "fireman," to insert" in the case of."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I also dealt with the next Amendment in line 6. These are mainly drafting Amendments. They deal with the case of the fireman who is serving in the Armed Forces, and the object of the Amendment is to make certain that his pension rights are preserved, whether he comes back and resumes service as a fireman or whether he is prevented from doing so because of injury while on war service. These Amendments preserve his rights, and I am sure the Committee would desire that that should happen.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 6, leave out from "1938,"to end of line and insert:

"(a) engagement in service in the National Fire Service shall be treated for the purposes of the said Acts of 1939 and 1944 as resumption of service as a constable;
(b) if he is prevented as mentioned in those Acts from engaging in service in the National Fire Service or a fire brigade mantained in pursuance of this Act, he shall be treated for the purposes of those Acts as having been so prevented from resuming service as a constable."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Conditions of service.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18. line 43, at the end, to insert:
References in this Section to the conditions of service of persons employed as aforesaid include references to welfare arrangements for such persons.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will recollect that in Standing Committee an Amendment was moved to ensure that among the points to be considered should be welfare arrangements. I gave a promise that,


at this stage of the Bill, I would move an Amendment to ensure that that should be done, and I hope the words of the Amendment fully carry out the pledge which I gave.

Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that this Amendment fully carries out the pledge which he gave with regard to welfare arrangements in connection with an Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Firemen's Pension Scheme.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 24, line 6, to leave out "transfer to,' and to insert" entry on service with."
Here, again, I think it would be convenient if I dealt also with the next Amendment, in line 12. These are both drafting Amendments providing for the transfer of pension assets, including rateable deductions, in cases where a professional fireman who has been away on war service joins a completely new brigade; that is to say, not his old brigade and not one which has absorbed his former brigade. As at present drafted, the Clause provides only for payment between authorities where the fireman transfers directly from one brigade to another, and, accordingly, does not cover the case of the fireman who enters a new brigade from war service in the Armed Forces.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 12, leave out "transfer to," and insert "entry on."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 24, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(f) for the reimbursement of payments under the last foregoing paragraph out of any superannuation fund to which contributions have been made in respect of the previous service to which the payments related;
(g) for the making, where a person enters on service with a fire authority in a case where no payment falls to be made under paragraph (e) of this subsection, of payments in respect of previous service with that authority out of any superannuation fund to which contributions have been made in respect of the previous service.

This is a purely technical Amendment which arises out of the extreme complexity of the arrangements which have been made for the fire service during recent years. This Amendment deals with the case of the professional firemen who opted to remain under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the corresponding Scottish Act. The essential point is that under those Acts small local authorities frequently do not maintain their own superannuation funds, but pay into a joint superannuation fund because they have not in their own service sufficient people to warrant their having a superannuation fund.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman is moving to insert paragraphs (f) and (g).

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Marlowe: There are already in the Bill, at lines 15 and 21, paragraphs (f) and (g). I do not see anything on the Order Paper with regard to those paragraphs. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what will happen to them, because it is not clear to me?

Mr. Ede: In a case like this, we move to insert two new paragraph (f) and (g), and before the Bill is sent to another place someone—I do not know whether it is the Clerk at the Table, or somebody who is more capable of manipulating the alphabet than we are—changes the original paragraphs (f) and (g) to (h) and (i), or whatever they should be.

Mr. Marlowe: I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to move the deletion of the original paragraphs (f) and (g).

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: No. The purpose of this Amendment is to insert new paragraphs (f) and (g), and the original paragraphs will then become (h) and (i), I think; I am not certain. The Bill as it stands would not allow the payment of a transfer value in such cases, since the authority administering the fund would not be the authority employing the men. The Amendment is, accordingly, necessary to make these payments possible. Provision is also made, in the case where a person becomes a fireman with the same local authority, for the necessary payments to be transferred from the superannuation fund of the fire brigade to the fire brigade


pension fund. He was in one pension fund before he goes to a new one, and if he is to get the benefit of his brigade service we must provide for the transfer of the value to him from the original fund to the fund to which he will contribute in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 24, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(i) for reckoning, for all or any of the purposes of the Scheme, the period of service of a person in the Armed Forces of the Crown, or in the Mercantile Marine, or the period of war-time service of a person on duties connected with the provision of fire services, as may be specified in the Scheme, as.if it were service as a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act for twice such period, or any less time than twice such period, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be so specified and either as respect the whole of the service so specified or as respects such fraction thereof as may be so specified.
I ought to apologise to the Committee for having my Amendment in the wrong italicised alphabetical order, and for not having moved it in Committee. The object of the Amendment is to make it permissible for the Home Secretary to weight pension schemes in favour of those people who have done war service of some sort or another. First, a regular fireman who has served side by side with a man who has done war service gets no gratuity, while the man who has done war service and gets the same pay enjoys a war gratuity by an extra period being counted for pension., He is able in this way to get the gratuity. The second ground on which I urge this Amendment on my right hon. Friend is that, while it is not altogether possible to determine the degree of sickness occasioned by war service, if one looks at actual figures one sees there has been a considerable increase during the war years in the number of firemen who have had to leave the service owing to sickness during the war period, as compared with the period prior to the war. The rate of discharge during the war period and the post-war period has more than trebled. The rate of discharge with pension has increased from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent. to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 33 per cent. I do not hold out this Amendment as the best solution of the matter, but in the hope that my right hon. Friend

will be able to do something to meet the anomalies.

Mr. Ede: This new proposal, as far as I know, is a complete innovation in the pension law and in the relationships between local authorities and their servants in the matter of war service. I cannot help thinking that if anything like this is to be done, it must be done as part of general legislation and not brought into a Measure of this kind. I am sure that if we bring it in here it will create far more anomalies than it will cure. I do not think that at this stage anyone could apply to these rates only, the doctrine that one year in the Forces has to count as two years in civilian life in reckoning service which qualifies a man for pension. If that is to be done, clearly it cannot be done for firemen only. I am sure it would be quite wrong for this Committee, on a Bill like this, to start a movement like that without having given the matter the very fullest consideration. I am sure the Committee will require a solution of that matter before such a principle is inserted. There are powers within the Pension Acts to deal with some of the cases, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that, having ventilated this matter on this Bill, he should, if he desires to see the principle applied, put it forward as a matter of general policy. If we were to insert this provision in the Bill for these particular people, we should create differences and difficulties that would not make the future working of the service any easier. It is not possible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Bing: T beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 25, line 4, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert" fifteen."
In view of the argument made on the last Amendment, I have much greater hope of succeeding with this one, for this, far from being a departure, is a return to precedent, and if my right hon. Friend is basing himself on precedent, then I have great hopes that he will support me in this Amendment. What I and my hon. Friends seek to do here is to restore to the fire services as a whole what I believe was a very satisfactory principle that was adopted in the London fire service before the war. The object is to


make it possible for a man to be pensioned after a period of 15 years. The present pension scheme is devised on the analogy with the police force. Hon. Members will know that we could not be better served by the police than we are by those in the House, but we have only to look around to realise that, however suitable they are for the duties they are doing at present, they might be unsuitable for scaling a ladder during a fire. After a period of 15 years, individuals, by reason of corpulence, or for other reasons, cannot continue in the service of the fire brigade without danger to themselves, or even to their rescuers. I hope the Home Secretary will accept the plan in the Amendment, which was extremely successful in the London fire service, and make it possible to arrange for a man to retire after 15 years' service.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has not quite accurately stated the case. I understand that under the old London fire service a man had to be 47 years of age before he could claim to retire in the way that has been suggested, and that did not mean, if he came in at the latest possible age under the scheme, he would have had 16 years' service before he could do it. Here, again, I do not think one should contemplate asking the ratepayers of this country to agree to allow a man to retire without a medical certificate. I suggest that a man, if he is physically unfit—a corpulent man, for instance—should have to get a medical certificate to say so. Certainly, some of the fittest men I have known have been rather more corpulent than myself. The man has to get a medical certificate. I suggest to my hon. Friend that this Amendment goes a great deal farther than he would get any reasonable local authority in this country to go, and that it would be very ill-advised on the part of the Committee to insert such an Amendment. After all, the number of years' service that a man is now required to perform before he can retire on full pension is 30 years.
I suggest that we should leave this figure as it is. If, in the course of years, experience proves that it works harshly, I have no doubt that local authorities and the representatives of the men will be able to make appropriate representations to get it altered. But I have no evidence in front of me that so drastic an Amendment as this is required.

Mr. Henry Wallace: On the previous Amendment my right hon. Friend pointed out that if he accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) he would be setting up a precedent for the whole of the Government service outside the fire service. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there are many precedents which would support the reduction to this period of 15 years. I could give him precedent for 10 years.

Mr. Ede: Without a medical certificate?

Mr. Wallace: With a medical certificate.

Mr. Ede: Yes, I agree, with a medical certificate.

Mr. Wallace: My right hon. Friend accepts that?

Mr. Ede: I want hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to understand what I have said. This Amendment is designed to give men the right to retire after 15 years without a medical certificate. If it were accepted it would give a man the right to say: "I have served in the fire service long enough. I want to leave, and I claim my pension. "I do not think there is any other service in which that happens, certainly under the Superannuation Acts. Of course, after 10 years a person can get a small allowance with a medical certificate, and the same thing can be done in local government service and in the police, but that is not the proposal in this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Wheatley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that on a previous occasion I raised the question of firemen being allowed to retire at the age of 50. I wonder whether that is covered in Subsection (3, b). A man may not be medically unfit, but firemen have to climb over high buildings; it is very strenuous work, and when they reach the age of 50 they are not really capable of doing that sort of work. Would that type of case be covered under Subsection (3, b)?

Mr. Ede: We cannot allow the man himself to say: "I no longer feel that I am fit to do this particular part of the


job; therefore, I claim to draw my pension "—on a fund which is based on the idea that a man can only claim a pension before completing a certain number of years if he can get a medical certificate. If we give him the right to clear out earlier it would destroy the whole actuarial basis of the fund. If a fireman feels that he is ageing prematurely he must go to the medical officer and get the certificate which will support his application for a pension.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 44, line 5, at the end, to insert:


1 Edw. 8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 68
The Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.
In the First Schedule, in Part II, paragraph 2.


1 Edw.8 &amp; 1 Geo. 6. c. 69.
The Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937.
In the First Schedule, in Part II, paragraph 2.


Clause 26 (2, a) makes it possible to exclude from a firemen's pension scheme certain classes of persons who, although members of fire brigades, will not be active fire fighters. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the provision in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the corresponding Scottish Act, which was directed at professional firemen, will not operate to exclude those persons from superannuation rights under those Acts. Professional firemen were excluded from the Local Government Superannuation Acts except for a handful of special cases. It is thought that the definition of "professional firemen "might unintentionally cover members of fire brigades excluded from the firemen's pension scheme and, therefore, deprive them of superannuation rights. We desire to avoid that.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is a later Amendment to exclude Scotland from the Bill, but I notice that part of this Amendment refers to Scotland. I take it that by accepting this Amendment we shall not be prejudicing our position so far as the main Amendment later is concerned. Perhaps that

could be made clear. If that is so, I have nothing more to say. Otherwise, we might have to pursue the matter on this Amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: That later Amendment will be called.

Mr. Ede: I did make some remarks in Standing Committee about the desirability of Home Rule for England.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-commital), considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Fire brigade committees in counties.)

(1) Every fire authority (other than the London County Council) which is the council of a county shall constitute a fire brigade committee in accordance with the following provisions of this Section, and—

(a) shall refer to the fire brigade committee for report and recommendation all matters relating to the authority's functions under this Act, except such matters as the authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State determine, and shall unless in their opinion the case is urgent receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to any matters referred to the committee before taking action in relation to those matters;
(b) may delegate to the fire brigade committee, either with or without conditions or restrictions, any of the authority's functions under this Act other than powers of raising a rate or borrowing money.

(2) Until the coming into force in accordance with the provisions of this Act of a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "management scheme") determining the constitution of a fire brigade committee under this Section, the constitution thereof shall be such as may be determined by the fire authority, and thereafter such as may be determined by such a scheme.

(3) As soon as may be after the appointed day every such fire authority as aforesaid shall make a management scheme in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the First Schedule to this Act.

(4) A management scheme shall provide for the appointment to a fire brigade committee by the fire authority of such number of members of that authority as may be specified in the scheme, and for the appointment to the committee by or on behalf of councils of county districts comprised in the area of the fire authority of such less number of persons representing those councils as may be so specified.

(5) A management scheme shall be submitted to the Secretary of State, and shall come into force when approved by him, either as submitted or subject to such modifications as he may direct.

(6) A management scheme may be varied by a subsequent scheme made in the like manner and subject to the like provisions as the scheme varied.

(7) If as respects the area of any fire authority such as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section—

(a) before the expiration of three months from the appointed day, or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow, no management scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State, or
(b) at any time it appears to the Secretary of State, whether on the representations of the council of any county district comprised in the area of the fire authority or otherwise, that the management scheme in force is not satisfactory,
the Secretary of State may, after affording to the fire authority and to every such council as aforesaid an opportunity of making representations to him, make a scheme.

(8) The provisions of Subsections (4), (6) and (7) of this Section shall apply to a scheme made under the said Subsection (7) as if it were a management scheme submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State.

(9) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act, apply to a fire authority—

(a) which is constituted by a combination scheme,
(b) the area of which includes one or more counties, other than the County of London, as they apply to such authorities as are mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that we gave a considerable amount of time in the early discussion to the problems that would arise in local government when this Bill became law. That was a reflex of what happened in the House on Second Reading, when there were two main objections to this Bill. The first objection was the local authority set-up; and the second, the question of the size of the grant. We were unable to pursue the question of the grant in Standing Committee, so that we were able to concentrate with a single mind on the problem of local government. In the Second Reading Debate I said that there was one thing I would not do, namely, to agree to the appointment by district councils of members of the committee of the county councils. Now, that chance remark of mine caused the most tremendous enthusiasm to be aroused among county district councils for exactly

that solution to the problem. That enthusiasm became so great that it was obvious that I was going to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number by retracting from the position that I adopted in the House; and I decided, in these sad times, that it was as well to make somebody happy if one could. This new Clause does what, I frankly confess, I said I would not do on Second Reading.
At the third sitting of the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) moved an Amendment—on which we had a long and good-tempered discussion—proposing to give power to county councils to delegate their functions to county district councils. That Amendment was defeated, after a long and friendly discussion, by 25 votes to 13. In that Debate I indicated my intention to seek a solution of the problem in the following two directions: By giving the county districts an appropriate representation on county fire brigade committees; and by giving the county districts an opportunity of making representations on schemes proposed by county councils for the establishment of fire brigades. Subsequently I held a conference with representatives of the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association, at which almost complete agreement was reached on the details of a plan on the above lines. As far as the second part was concerned, I was able to make the necessary Amendments upstairs, because we had not reached that part of the Bill when my decision was made. Clause 20 and the First and Second Schedules show
how that has been carried out. I could not deal upstairs with the representation of county districts on county fire brigade committees, because an involved Amendment to Clause 4 could not be moved in view of the stage we had reached. I propose to put that matter right in this new Clause.
The substance of the new Clause is contained in Subsections (4) and (5). They provide that county councils shall submit for approval by the Secretary of State schemes to secure representation of district councils on the county fire brigade committees, subject to the county councils retaining the majority of members on


the committees. County councils dissent from two points in this matter. In the first place, they think that the representatives of the district councils should be nominated but not appointed. My own view is that a county district council is a responsible body, and one must expect it, when it chooses people to serve on a county committee, to choose a fit and proper person. I do not think it should be left to the county council to have the right to say that they do not like one of the nominees, and decline to have him in the county hall on one of their committees. I do not think they should have the right to say, "Will you please think again and send us along another nominee." I am bound to say that the power to reject a nomination would hardly ever be used, but the county district councils set considerable store on the power of appointing, and as their nominees would undoubtedly be appointed, it would be very foolish to quarrel over words when we have got so near to agreement.
Their second objection was that they thought that county councils should have a two-thirds majority on the committee. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not require that the difference between the number of members appointed by the county councils and the number appointed by the district councils shall be a difference of only one. There will be some counties where there are substantial numbers of important county district councils, in which case it may be desirable that the proportion shall be very high. There may be other counties where the number of county district councils is small, and it may well be that the proportion representing district councils will be low. As we found on one of the first Amendments we discussed today, it is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule, when dealing with the structure of local government, in a country where the population is so unevenly spread, and the size and importance of local government authorities are so different. I told the conference, therefore, that I proposed to give to county district councils the power to appoint, and that the maximum number of members to be appointed under any scheme would be one fewer than half the whole of the committee.
It will be for each county to prepare its own scheme in the matter. I can

imagine this kind of thing happening, although this is not to be taken as a uniform pattern. There will be some large and important district councils, entitled to have at least one direct representative on the Committee; there will be smaller county district councils which will have to be grouped into "electoral colleges," for want of a better word, having the right to choose two, three or four members to represent them on the county committee. A scheme will have to be considered by each county council in the light of the circumstances in their area. I have no doubt that with the good will which prevailed at the conference, these schemes can be brought into operation without very much difficulty.
There are a few other matters on this new Clause to which I ought to draw attention. The provision for the appointment of district council representatives on county fire brigade committees is not to come into operation until after the appointed day. The procedure required by Clause 20 for the settlement of establishment schemes leaves little margin of time, if the work is to be done before 1st April, 1948. The following steps will have to be taken before establishment schemes can be settled. Firstly, the county council will have to appoint a fire brigade committee and instruct it to provide an establishment scheme. Second, that Committee will have to circulate a draft scheme to all the district councils, giving them one month in which to submit their representations. Third, the fire brigade committee will have to consider any representations received from district councils, and then submit them, with final recommendations, to the county council. The county council will have to obtain a report from its finance committee, because a county council cannot incur expenditure of more than £50 unless the finance committee submits the estimate. Lastly, the county council will have to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State for approval by 1st January, 1948. The establishment schemes can come into operation on 1st, April, which I hope will be the appointed day. It is quite clear that if that programme is carried out, it will not be possible to constitute the fire brigade committees contemplated under this Clause.

Mr. Grimston: It will be necessary for the county councils to constitute fire brigade committees at once to get on with


the job. Will they include members of the county district councils?

Mr. Ede: I have tried to explain that. I think we can assume that this Bill will become law before 1st August. I need not say anything about the Government's legislative programme, but we hope that this Bill will cause no controversy after it has been considered today. I think that that is a reasonable assumption. If these establishment schemes are to be got through, and the negotiations satisfactorily conducted, I am sure that it would not be possible to wait until the appointment of district council representatives on the committees had time to operate. August and the early part of September is not a very busy period usually in 'local government circles. The provisions as to fire brigade committees will apply also in the case of any combined area which includes the administrative county, and an Amendment which I shall propose, in page 40, line 41, will enable the necessary provisions to be made before the appointed day by way of amendment to a combination scheme after the appointed day.
6.0 p.m.
I would direct the attention of the House to the provision of Subsection (7), which allows direct action to be taken by the Secretary of State, although I think it improbable that any necessity will arise for the exercise of these powers. When the Bill was before us on Second Reading the problem of the future local government of the fire services appeared likely to cause great controversy, and very considerable heartburning, no matter what solution might ultimately be found. I have been much impressed by the cordial spirit in which the county representatives and county district representatives have approached this matter, and I commend this Clause to the House in the full knowledge that all the associations concerned are hoping to work it to their mutual advantage, for the benefit of the service and the community which the service exists to serve.

Mr. Grimston: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there were two main points of controversy when the Bill was introduced, and he has exhibited strength in respect of both of them. He tied the Financial Resolution up so tightly that there was no more to be said about that, and on the question of delegation and

bringing in the county district councils he has changed his mind. This Clause is part of the general framework, the other part of which was introduced in Committee, whereby county district councils are brought into the making of the schemes and the administration of them afterwards. In his discussions with representatives of the various local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at a scheme which met the objections which we and they had when the Bill was introduced. It was feared that many local authorities who had run their fire services well in the past would not get them back at all, and that a great deal of prestige, local pride, and efficiency would be lost in this new setup. Through the introduction of a new Clause and Schedule in Committee, and the introduction of this new Clause now, that position has been covered. The associations of local government bodies are, I think, agreeable to the set-up of the Bill, and I would like to express our appreciation of the way in which the Home Secretary has handled this matter.

Mr. Maclay: I hate to raise a point which might not be so friendly and delightful as what we have just heard, but I would like to know whether this Clause is to apply to Scotland? I do not think it will, but I cannot find, anywhere on the Order Paper, a consequential Amendment which would mean that it would not apply to Scotland.

Mr. McLean Watson: I wish to raise the same point. My right hon. Friend will remember that several times in Committee I drew attention to the difference between the local government system in Scotland and that in England. While the district councils in England seem to be bodies of some consequence, they are bodies of no consequence in Scotland. I hope it will be made clear, before we part with this Clause, whether it applies to Scotland. I cannot think that it does. The Home Secretary has moved a new Clause to meet representations which were made to him about English conditions, but the provisions laid down in the Clause do not fit in with Scottish conditions.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Perhaps I may intervene to clear up this point. We have


an Amendment down, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 37, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(c) section (Fire brigade committees in counties),
which, if carried, will mean that the new Clause will not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: That Amendment is such a long way after the new Clause that I could not find it.

Mr. S. Marshall: I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister. As one who is still engaged in county and local government, I would point out that I was concerned, when the Bill was first introduced, at the entire absence of any power of delegation to the county district authorities. I am a great believer in the delegation of powers by a county council to its district authorities, wherever it can, but I could not see how such powers might be delegated, because it became obvious that effective fire services could only be carried out by a central authority. I am, therefore, glad that a way has been found by which district authorities will have some representation, or some say, in the question of carrying on the fire services in their counties. For many years, it has been one of the great privileges of parish, district, and borough councils to give a great deal of attention to their fire brigades and fire services. This work has formed a very large and interesting part of local government. There was dismay at the thought that these authorities might lose all their privileges, and the solution which the Minister has found will be gratifying to them, because they will still have a finger in the pie.

Mr. Sparks: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to retract somewhat from his previous position on this question of bringing county district councils into the scheme of responsibility for the fire brigade services. I think that in putting down this new Clause he has acted very wisely. I need not remind the House that it is the local ratepayers Who will have to provide the finance for the county councils in the administration of their fire brigade services. I believe that they have an important part to play in the development of those services in their own localities, as well as in the larger geographical area of the county. Having

gone so far, will he go a step further? As I understand the Clause, the idea is to set up a fire brigade committee which will be responsible for the administration of the fire services for the whole of a county area. My right hon. Friend said that in deciding upon the representation upon that Committee of the county district councils it would not be possible owing to the differing nature of those councils to provide a representative from each county district, and some of the county districts would have to be brought together for the purpose of electing one—

Mr. Ede: Or more.

Mr. Sparks: —to the county fire brigade committee. Is it possible for the county fire brigade committee to have powers to delegate certain functions of a local character to sub-committees formed on a geographical area basis? In some cases the county is a very large geographical unit, and this would involve a considerable amount of time in travelling for county district representatives. In the Town and Country Planning Bill that principle has been embodied, and I think that it would be conducive to the maximum of interest and efficiency if in cases where the county was a large geographical area there could be sub-committees of the county fire brigade committee to which each county district within that area could send one representative, each of these geographical sub-committees being responsible to the county fire brigade committee.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to look at that point. I think that we should try to bring the county district councils, however small, into this general scheme. There is a tendency to get away from close contact with a locality and the local ratepayers of that locality. We need to knit the county district councils into the functions not only of the fire brigade service, and I think that this will help to bring the county and district councils together and provide maximum efficiency in the organisations which we propose to set up to provide fire fighting services.

Mr. D. Jones: I think that it is only right that as one of the people who offered some criticism of this Bill on Second Reading, I should join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on having devised


this method The Home Secretary can be trusted at all times to find an ingenious way of changing his mind. After all, it is the Home Secretary's job to make the maximum number of people happy. By this Clause the county district councils are enabled to take part in the administration of the fire brigade affairs of a county, and for that, I believe, they will be grateful. The scheme which the Home Secretary has propounded is certainly an improvement on a former scheme with which he was actively associated. He has learned by experience from a previous Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, there are county councils and county councils in England and Wales. Consequently the view expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) does not find expression in a large number of counties in England and Wares. I agree with the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that the fire brigade affairs are, after all, domestic affairs. They are matters which concern the people of the district, and the more interest one can engender into the management of fire brigade affairs the greater will be the efficiency of the fire brigade as a whole.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: An important part of the new Clause which will be most satisfactory to local authorities is, I think, the very definite right which it gives them to make representation to the Home Secretary with regard to the preparation of the scheme. I do not envisage very much trouble, after the experience I have had of fire brigade authorities, in dealing with matters of administration. The question of dealing with fires is technically one for the officers and men concerned, and it is the duty of the authority to see that they are properly trained for that purpose. There is one question, however, on which I think there will be some heart burning. It is important that the county districts should be able to make representations to the Home Secretary because many of them will be losing their fire stations as the result of the new set-up. In the interests of economy and in view of the present type of fire appliances for which the ratepayers have to pay, it is highly important that they should have the most effective economic system of fire fighting consistent with safety. For that reason, I think it is very wise, in view of the "little breezes" which I am sure will

come along when the proposals of the fire brigade authorities are submitted to the Home Secretary, that there should be an outlet on the part of the county districts, and if the fire authority has erred in any way against the interests of any county district, they should be able to make the appropriate and necessary amendments to the scheme as submitted.
With regard to the question of representation by local authorities, it is obvious that there would have to be some grouping. In a county like mine with 26 local authorities, if there was one representative of each, the fire brigade committee would consist of 52 members which, of course, would be unwieldy and quite unnecessary. In addition, if that was conceded one could imagine some of the larger boroughs saying that if a smaller district was to have one representative, they should have two, and there would be no limit to the size of the committee. I do not consider that in any of the built-up areas, at any rate, a case could be made out for area committees for the purpose of administration. It is a single job, and if you take the experience of London as a built-up area, there has not been found any need at all, in what was probably the most efficient fire brigade in the world, to have anything other than a central committee for the purposes of management.
Therefore, I feel that this Clause goes as far as may reasonably be expected in order to meet the two opposing points of view. We ought to remember that had it not been for the promise that was made that fire brigades would go back to the local authorities, it is doubtful whether we should have had this Bill before us at all. It may be taken that a lot of people have their minds made up about the type of organisation for fire fighting services, and it is because of that promise, and because of the need for compromise, that we have the Bill and also the provision for the additional representation under this Clause, which I am satisfied will meet all reasonable points of view.

Major Legge-Bourke: I was not a Member of the Committee on this Bill and I do not, therefore, know whether the point I want to raise has been covered. I am afraid I missed the opening remarks of the Home Secretary when he was moving this new Clause,


but there is one point on which I am in some confusion. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in this new Clause there is a mention of a "management scheme," and a "management scheme" is referred to the whole way through. In Subsection (3) we are referred to the First Schedule, which I understand refers to an "establishment scheme" with reference to Clause 20, where again the phrase "establishment scheme" is used. I wondered whether the differentiation between the two phrases was deliberate, or whether they should not be the same?

Mr. Richards: The introduction of this Clause has given universal satisfaction to the people who have been discussing the matter upstairs, but there is one point I should like to have cleared up. The Home Secretary has recognised the claims of the county district authorities to be represented along with the county councils on the fire brigade committee, which I think is all to the good. I had in mind, however, a very large rural district, and a very populous one, at the centre of which is a large borough where, in former days, they had a very efficient fire brigade. Is there to be any representation for a borough of that kind on the fire brigade committee? Hitherto the borough provided fire services for the whole of this rural area, which is now to be represented, along with the county, in the new set-up, and they want to know if they are to be represented in any way.

Mr. Ede: I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have received this new Clause, and to express my thanks also to the representatives of the local authorities for the way in which, when they realised that this Bill was really to be promoted and was to go through, they got together and reached a mutually satisfactory solution. There are really only two points with which I need deal now, the first being that made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). If he will look at the Amendment Paper he will see at the foot of page 3728 some Amendments to page 40 to insert the words "and management schemes." That I think answers the point he raised.
With regard to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr.

Richards), in future, in the county of which he represents a part, the fire authority will be the county council, which will be responsible for the whole of the county. This new Clause provides that when they are constituting their final fire brigade committee they shall have regard to the various county district councils and arrange for them to be represented on the fire brigade committee, and I have no doubt that the part which gives its name to his constituency, representing, as of course it does, a substantial slice of the population and rateable value of the county, will get appropriate representation. The knowledge that their members can bring with regard to the way to deal with the surrounding rural area, which they had previously covered by arrangement with the rural districts or parish councils, will be brought to the county committee and placed at the disposal of that committee, which will in future be responsible for providing fire protection for Wrexham and for the parishes adjoining it, as well as for all the other parishes situated in the administrative county. The arrangement which the local authorities have finally accepted provides for bringing to the county fire brigade committee the very great experience of the men who have served on a borough fire committee which has undertaken the duty of affording protection to the surrounding areas.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of fire services.)

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page line 6, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "England and Wales."
There are three other Amendments on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of other hon. Members—in page 32, line 7; in page 38, line 32, and in page 42, line 16, all of which are linked together, and I would like to deal with all of them in my speech. The effect of the Amendment I have moved would be to make this Bill apply only to England and Wales, and leave the way clear—and I say this deliberately—for a separate Bill for Scotland. I do not necessarily imply that Scotland should go back to the status quo, or should go on as they are now, but the case I want to make is


that there is a real need for a separate Bill for Scotland on this occasion.
Legislation for Scotland by means of a Scottish application Clause is very often justifiable. It may be justifiable on grounds of urgency, or because all that is necessary is to make the Bill applicable to Scotland in accordance with Scottish law, or perhaps to adapt it in points of minor detail to the peculiar circumstances of Scotland. A Scottish application Clause cannot, however, be suitable when it contains a very different principle from that which is embodied in the English Clauses, and that I submit is the case in this Bill. I should like to make that clear to hon. Members, because I think that not only my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House, but even English Members as well will be interested in this matter, and I hope they will all support what we are doing when they see what has happened owing to this peculiar method of legislating for Scotland.
Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for the making of schemes of combination by fire authorities, and Clause 6 gives the Home Secretary power to make schemes where he considers it expedient and if the local authorities have not produced a satisfactory scheme, or any scheme at all. Even that power of the Home Secretary is subject to a numerical qualification which I will not go into—it is all in the Bill—and still further it is subject to a public local inquiry if there is objection. That is all very reasonably democratic. The principles in these clauses have been dealt with with considerable unanimity on all sides of the House and with the local authorities concerned, but these Clauses do not apply to Scotland. In Scotland the areas are laid down by Clause 36 and by the Fourth Schedule to the Bill, and there is no conceivable right' of public inquiry or anything of that sort. That is the fundamental difference between the English and the Scottish parts of the Bill, which makes the whole thing unsuitable for application to Scotland by means of the application Clause.
6.30 p.m.
During the Committee stage, owing to the work that was going on in the House and owing to the fact that only a small number of Scottish Members could be appointed to the Standing Committee, this Scottish application Clause could not be gone into in great detail. It is a difficult

thing to do when one has cross-references back to English Clauses, and where there is inadequate representation, not in quality, but in numbers, on the Standing Committee. The issue in this case is one of self-determination. England has been granted self-determination in this matter to a large extent. Self-determination is a principle we all subscribe to, although we may except reluctantly certain people who may not be sufficiently mature politically for the right of self-determination. I would not like to hear either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary of State argue for one minute that the people of Scotland are politically less mature than the people of England. I really think it is more than a little hard that Scots should be denied in this matter the right of self-determination, which is granted to their cousins across the Border. I hope the Secretary of State will deal clearly with that matter.
I want now to come to another point which it is very important we should get clear. Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland, but we can follow what has happened in relation to these two Clauses in recent months so that hon. Members will 'see why we in Scotland are disturbed about this matter. Clause 19 is concerned with the procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions, and is linked up with the appointments of fire masters or whatever they may be called. The Clause applies to Scotland. This point was discussed in Standing Committee upstairs, but I should like briefly to refer to it because it relates to my next point. We find, as was pointed out in Standing Committee, that in spite of this Clause being applicable to Scotland, which would imply that areas in Scotland have the right to choose their own fire masters, something happened in Scotland to suggest that these men had been appointed by the Secretary of State under the title of "firemasters designate." I see that that was ingeniously and properly answered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee upstairs when he said:
The fire authorities in the future will be empowered to make their own appointments subject to certain procedure.
He then went on to say, further down the column:
I repeat, therefore, what the Secretary of State has done in Scotland today, he was


perfectly free to do with the National Fire Service and no one has said that he is not free to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th May, 1947; C. 266.]
In other words, the point made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was that these firemasters designate were appointed in relation to the continuing National Fire Service in the interim period, and were not necessarily applicable to the new scheme when this Bill goes through. That is a good enough point, but one wonders whether it is not a case where the performance of the hon. Gentleman was slightly in advance of his desires. When we come to Clause 20, it becomes more interesting, because Clause 20 deals with fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes. During the Committee stage the Home Secretary withdrew the original Clause 20 and substituted the present Clause 20, which seems to give the right to areas to make their own establishment schemes and submit them to the Secretary of State. What has happened in this respect in Scotland? I am afraid that this was something which was not mentioned upstairs, but it relates to my argument. So far back as 15th February, a letter was sent by the Scottish Home Department to a town clerk of a town in the East of Scotland, from which I would like to quote the following paragraph:
I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to previous correspondence about the proposed transfer of the fire service to local authority control…"—
those are the operative words, "local authority control"—
and to say, for the information of your town council, that, after careful consideration of the fire risks to be covered in the proposed Angus (No. 9) Fire Area in the light of the best technical advice available regarding the appropriate standards of fire cover and of the actual experience of the National Fire Service, it appears to him that the following disposition of men and appliances would be appropriate for the peacetime requirements:
Then follows a complete list of establishment, including firemen, leading firemen, section leaders and company officers, etc. I would be glad to show this letter to the Under-Secretary of State if he desires to see it. Then I turn over the page and I find this,
In order that the recruitment of suitable permanent firemen up to the approved establishments may be completed, the Secretary of State will be glad to receive as soon as possible any observations which your council

may wish to offer on the proposed disposition of whole-time men in the area.
That is all very handsome, but it is not Clause 20 of this Bill. The point there is that we know that Clause 36 is in the Bill and we know that Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland. However, something has already happened, and it looks as if the whole issue has been prejudged, and I submit that under both Clause 19 and Clause 20 the same thing has happened. One might say that we are always pressing the Scottish Office to get on with the job and not waste time. On this occasion they have certainly got on with the job four months in advance of the Bill. While possibly commendable in certain conditions, I do not think it makes good sense here. What I want to make clear, before I come to my main point, is that with these things happening one can understand that the local authorities in Scotland are thoroughly upset, unlike their English counterparts, who seem to be content. The Scottish local authorities do not know whether the fire masters are appointed by the Secretary of State, and they do not know whether the establishment scheme laid down in February of this year, or suggested by the Department, is going to be maintained. One can hardly blame them for being upset, nor will the Secretary of State be surprised that the council of an ancient burgh long famed for its interest in freedom should have broken off diplomatic relations on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a lesson from the Foreign Secretary in his own Government and will continue to hold out olive branches to try to establish even distant relations through emissaries if he cannot get diplomatic relations in full restored.
I come to the final and main point. Here we have a Bill dealing with local authorities who have up to now handled the fire problems of the country. Surely, it is essential, if we are going to get a workable Bill, to take the local authorities reasonably along with us. It is not good enough to say, "We can never get agreement with them and we must impose something on them." That appeared to be the position in England and Wales where it also looked as if no solution would be found. However, it seems now that a solution was forthcoming. It is essential that the Scottish application Clause should be deleted from the Bill, and that the Secretary of State should


present to this House a separate Bill for Scotland. In the interval before doing so, he should get the opinion again of the local authorities and work out some workable proposition acceptable to them.
There are two bodies which represent the local authorities of Scotland. One is the Convention of Royal Burghs and the other the Association of County Councils. Between them they represent nearly all the county councils and local authorities in Scotland. Both have placed it flatly on record that they do not like this Bill. I quoted at some length upstairs a statement by the Convention of Royal Burghs. I do not propose to repeat it here, but since that date there has been a further statement by the Association of County Councils of Scotland, dated 20th May. In this statement they say flatly that that association also has reached the conclusion by a large majority that "rather than accept the provisions of the Bill" —in other words, they turn the Bill down altogether. They then go on to make a proposal which would not necessarily be harmonious with that of the Convention of Royal Burghs, because the Association of County Councils say that they prefer that the service should be maintained on a national basis.
All I am asking is that the Scottish Clauses should be taken clean out of the Bill, which should be made applicable to England and Wales only, and that the Secretary of State should make a new attempt to come to some sensible working arrangement with the local authorities in Scotland. If he does not do this, he is really overriding the wishes of the elected representatives of the people, because the local authorities are the bodies appointed by the electors to deal with fire matters. I think that that is a correct statement from the technical and constitutional position, and here we have the Government ridingroughshod over the elected representatives of the people, and I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will wish to go down into history with that kind of reputation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has put his case so clearly that it will require very few words of mine to support it. I think

and hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will realise the depth of feeling that exists on this subject among local authorities of Scotland, both burghs and counties. I want to make it perfectly clear that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House do not oppose the principle of the Bill, but we certainly wish to have the matter of Scottish application reconsidered and a Bill introduced separately for Scotland. I ventured to say on Second Reading that this was a perfect example of the mixing up of legislation for Scotland and England which could only end in trouble. There is row the state of trouble which one foresaw at that time.
The fact that both the local authority organisations in Scotland object strongly should be sufficient evidence that all is not well, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give this point real consideration. I hope he will agree that the Bill should be withdrawn so far as it concerns Scotland and quickly reorganised into a new Bill which will be produced as a brand new Measure. We cannot afford to ignore the local authorities in matters like this because it is they who have to run the show, and those who run the show should, after all, have the greatest possible consideration. I for one am not at all satisfied that there was proper or, certainly, sufficient consultation with the local authorities before the areas specified in Schedule 4 were decided upon. I realised that there was consultation with what I believe is called the Fire Council, but that was not from the fire fighting point of view and did not, I suggest, really give full voice to the local authorities as a whole.
We have listened this afternoon to what I may term pæans of praise from English Members to the British Home Secretary. What were they praising? They were praising the Home Secretary for giving to England the very thing which the Secretary of State for Scotland denies us in Scotland, and I think, having heard that, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State should realise how pleased the English Members are that the Home Secretary should have done this and how pleased we should be if the Secretary of State had the same consideration for Scotland. I support this Amendment very


sincerely because I believe that it is essential if the administration in Scotland is to be efficient and the local authorities are to have proper recognition as the authorities who have to do the job. I hope that the smile on the face of the Secretary of State indicates that he will be as kind as the Home Secretary has been to the English hon. Members, and I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I should like to support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State justified the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill on the grounds that there was no vital departure on the matter of principle. I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has already shown that there has been a vital departure. After all, the English system lays down the means for voluntary combination between local fire authorities and goes on to establish a method of compulsory combination by the Home Secretary on three conditions. The first case in which this compulsory combination can take place is after a local inquiry has been held; the second after the matter has been laid before the House; and the third where at least one of the bodies which it is proposed to combine does not represent a population of more than 100,000.
6.45 p.m.
The difference between that and the application to Scotland is enormous, because for Scotland the groups have already been decided. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will tell us that this was done only after full consultation. No one will deny that there was consultation, and I know that the Joint Under-Secretary was at pains to have consultation. What happened in fact, however, was that he laid his idea before the bodies concerned, and although they did not express any violent opposition at the time, on second thoughts—without any propaganda or any violent campaign—both the convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils have seen fit to place on record the fact that they are opposed to this Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary may say, "Well, if this is the view which is taken, it was always open to you to

amend the Schedules. If the form of administration that is proposed for Scotland is not in accordance with the wishes of Scotland it would have been possible to put down Amendments to the Schedules." That is not the point. The point is that this has been imposed upon the local authorities. As my hon. Friend has already stated, in actual fact it would have been extremely difficult to carry any kind of Amendment or to examine in detail in the Committee upstairs or, indeed, here in the House, the form of administration that is proposed in the Fourth Schedule or to make any suggestions which would have enabled hon. Members on either side to debate the matter as intelligently as would have been possible if there had been a local inquiry and a scheme had been specifically laid before the House.
The next thing we shall be told is what will be the effect if this Amendment is carried. Quite obviously the effect is that, for the time being at any rate, the National Fire Service remains in operation in Scotland. What is wrong with that? It simply becomes the Scottish National Fire Service, and it can operate until some new Bill is brought in to produce an answer more in keeping with the wishes of the people of Scotland if the people of Scotland decide that they do not wish the National Fire Service to operate under the control of the county councils. During the Committee stage upstairs the Joint Under-Secretary said this:
It will be found that the rateable value in the areas of the joint committees in Scotland bears a comparison with the rateable value of the bigger county councils in England and Wales, and, indeed, with some of the bigger burghs that are to be fire authorities in their own right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th day, 1947. c. 334–5.]
That is true, but the rest of his case was based upon the fact that the areas to be covered in proportion to the population and rateable value are so very much greater. Therefore, what is really being done is to impose on Scotland. perhaps through geographical necessity, a very much larger fire cover for a very much smaller population.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said in the Second Reading Debate:
It is remarkable, and a great credit to the local authorities concerned, that upon this unsatisfactory basis"—


which was the rateable value—
so adequate an auxiliary service was built up before and immediately after the outbreak of war.
He went on:
But wartime experience showed clearly that in Scotland, as in England and in Wales, a broader-based organisation was essential …"[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1492.]
"Wartime experience." Therefore, if it was to meet normal peacetime requirements it should be a burden on the national authorities and not local authorities. In other words, quite definitely a different scheme is required for Scotland. In fact, a different scheme for Scotland is contained in the Bill. I, therefore, very strongly support the suggestion that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland. This is one of the cases in which a separate Bill for Scotland ought to be produced. Scotland should not be treated as it is in this Bill where a separate scheme is provided in a Measure also dealing with England and Wales.

Mr. Watson: I served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. As has already been said, while we had assurances from the Home Secretary that he was on terms of cordial relations with the representatives of the English local authorities and that there had been adequate discussions and also agreements, we could get no assurances that such a situation existed in regard to Scotland. I am not going to say at this stage that I am prepared to support the Amendment, but, at the same time, I have to confess that this Measure is a most unsatisfactory one for Scotland. I read the Hill when it came out first, and when we discussed it in Committee I found the greatest difficulty in applying the Clauses to the conditions in Scotland. It was not until the Chairman reminded me that the Clauses did not apply to Scotland at all that I was relieved of trying to fit in the proposed arrangements with our Scottish conditions. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation in Scotland.
The Bill tells us that the Secretary of State will consult the Scottish local fire authorities with regard to the appointment of the fire officers. That is all very well, but I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that without the Bill being an Act of Parliament, without any consultations with the fire authorities, which

cannot take place until this Bill becomes an Act, the Secretary of State had appointed his firemasters. He had divided Scotland into areas and appointed fire-masters to each of those areas. It is all very well to say that these men have no prescriptive right to the offices they hold after this becomes an Act of Parliament. but if the Secretary of State considered that in his judgment the men he has appointed were the best men for these offices, he will have some difficulty in explaining why he can pass them over when the time comes for him to make these "firemasters designate," as they are at present called, into firemasters. That matter gives me some little concern. It is the most unsatisfactory Measure applying to the whole of the United Kingdom that I have yet seen.
In the last Clause on which the Home Secretary spoke we find a considerable amount of reference to local government conditions in England. Those conditions do not apply to Scotland. Our Scottish conditions are entirely different. I am certain that a much better scheme could have been devised and that we could have had a Bill applying only to Scotland. There is so much in this Bill which describes English conditions—English county councils, English non-county boroughs and so on. What do we in Scotland know about non-county boroughs? What do we in Scotland know about county boroughs? We have large burghs and we have small burghs. It is true that we have district councils, such as they are, with practically no powers, looking after such things as rights of way and doing odd jobs about the parish. The district councils in Scotland are bodies of practically no consequence. Yet in the last Clause passed by this House, we have the district councils in England, bodies of some consequence, given representation on the fire authorities to be set up under the English scheme. The conditions in Scotland are entirely different, and it would have been very much better to have in another Measure a description of Scottish local government conditions comparable with the description of English local government conditions in this Bill.
I do not want to detain the House, because the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr Maclay) has gone fully into-the matter. The only other thing I want to say is that whereas 75 per cent. of the


cost of running this scheme has to be borne by the local ratepayers, the control will remain pretty much in the hands of the central body. I do not mind the central body having a say in the running of such a scheme, but when 75 per cent. of the cost of running it has to be borne by the local authorities, I think they are entitled to a great deal more say in it than they have under this Measure. With regard to training, not only has the central authority the power of setting the standard of the scheme, 75 per cent. of which has to be borne by the local ratepayers, but the local authority will have to come up to that standard before getting the 25 per cent. promised under the scheme. As far as Scotland is concerned, this is a most unsatisfactory Measure, and while we have gone too far now with it to have any hope of getting a separate Bill for Scotland, the Measure is certainly not the sort of Measure that we ought to have had to deal with the situation in Scotland.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). I am bound to say, in passing, that while I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), I was discouraged to hear him say that, although he approved of the Amendment, he thought it was now too late to give it his support in the Division Lobby. I am particularly disappointed because he is an expert on local government matters in Scotland. He has served for a long time on a local body and anything he says by way of criticism must be taken seriously to heart by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of what' the hon. Member said about the inadvisability of including Scotland in this Bill, I should have thought that he could have taken the bold course, if there is to be a Division, and have given us his support in the Division Lobby. Thereby he would have interpreted the wishes of the large majority of people in Scotland, and particularly of the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, in the way that we on this side of the House believe that those wishes could best be interpreted, namely, by supporting this Amendment in the Division Lobby, if the Secretary of State for Scotland is not prepared to accept it.

I hope he will be with us, but I have no great faith that he will go into the Lobby.
After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs and to the pleas from this side of the House, hope the right hon. Gentleman will be more seized than he has been up to the present of the strong feeling engendered, and still felt, in all parts of Scotland about being included in this Bill with England and Wales. Particularly has the feeling run high, because it is undoubtedly true that the right of self-determination, as the application Clause and the Fourth Schedule stand, is being denied to the people of Scotland and not to the people of England and Wales. It is hardly necessary to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with your great knowledge of Scotland, that the principle of self-determination has been strongly cherished there, and I am indeed surprised that the present political representatives of the Scottish Socialists, who claim to be good democrats, should sponsor a Measure—that is, if they deny us the acceptance of this Amendment—which seeks to deprive the people of Scotland of something in the way of self-determination which the Home Secretary and his English colleagues are prepared to give to England and Wales. All the great bodies, burghs, and county local authorities, in Scotland have declared against the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill. Only four weeks ago I was addressing a meeting in an important centre in the part of Scotland the representation of which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) who spoke a few minutes ago. My chairman, who is one of the baffles of Dumfries, when questions were invited, subjected me to long heckling—which is unusual for a chairman—about including Scotland in this Measure.
If this Amendment were accepted, what would happen? It would merely mean that, so far as Scotland is concerned, things would go on as they are for some months until the Government brought in a separate Measure which, while it would embody the principle contained in this Bill, would make the necessary modifications and applications to Scotland. This is not a very long Measure, but it is interesting to note that the application Clause for Scotland covers some six pages. That is ample evidence of the contention we make that it is inadvisable to include


Scotland in this Measure by way of application Clause. If the right hon Gentleman is not in a position to accept the Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will press for a Division, when they will certainly have my support in the Lobby.

Mr. Carmichael: I hope the House will not think that, because of our geographical position here, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and I are in political agreement on this subject. I rise first to clear up a point which should be cleared up, and then to be guided on another. I do not accept the view that there is serious indignation in Scotland about the Bill. I think that is false. I speak of the fire brigades service in Scotland with some little experience extending over some 17 years. I am not asking for a separate Bill for Scotland, although only a few weeks ago I was associated with a proposal in the House that Scotland should be excluded from an important Measure. I do not remember getting any support from this side of the House on that occasion, although it would appear that the principle I enunciated at that time is now being accepted by this side. I think it should be said that the old fire service in Scotland prior to the war was a bad and haphazard service. All kinds of chances were taken. There was no equipment of any kind in the counties to deal with emergencies. I know, as a member of the Glasgow authority, that we were called upon time and time again to assist areas which had no equipment. I am equally satisfied that the National Fire Service had many faults. Democratic control at times was almost completely divorced from it, and there was a tendency up and down the country for many little Hitlers to grow up as fire-masters, fire chiefs and fire commanders. The Bill, at least, tends to bring about a form of organisation in Scotland Tat will give us a decent fire service with democratic control. Having said that, I do not deny that it might have been possible for the Scottish Members to have evolved a much better Bill completely divorced from the English Bill, but that, of course, is a matter for the Government.
The point to which I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Secretary of State concerns Glasgow. I have looked through the Bill, I have examined the Fourth Schedule, and Glasgow is not

mentioned. However, I am not so ignorant as to assume that Glasgow is completely neglected. I regret that in this new arrangement the financial position is as it is, and that the Government should accept 25 per cent. of the responsibility, and leave 75 per cent. to the local authority. They could have applied the principle that is applied in the Police Acts. The police have a grant of 75 per cent. If there is any possibility of making a concession in regard to finance, all local authorities in Scotland would appreciate it. In many ways, the Measure is a big advance on any former Measure, although I have a slight sympathy with hon. Members who think that we could have evolved a better Bill than our friends across the Border.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is remarkable that all Members who have addressed the House from all parties have expressed grave dissatisfaction with the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and hon. Members on this side of the House included. This seems to show that the argument we have been putting forward for a long time against tacking Scotland on to English Bills is not, as has sometimes been represented, a sentimental or political argument, but a practical argument. I have no doubt at all that if we had had a separate Scottish Fire Services Bill, and taken it upstairs to the Scottish Grand Committee, we would never have got into this tangle. It is not too late to do that now. It does not matter if we get a year out of step; there might be some slight financial adjustments, but after all, that would not be serious. It would be much better to drop Scotland out of this Bill, and let matters go on as they are for another few months. Then the right hon. Gentleman could come forward at the beginning of next Session with a new Bill. There is always time at the beginning of a Session to get a small Bill through, and it could be more in accord with democratic sentiment in Scotland.
I do not want to overstress the importance of local authorities. I would not say that the views of a local authority ought to be decisive on questions of international, or even national magnitude but, when we come to questions of this kind, questions which formerly were within their province, it seems unjustified


to go ahead in face of united opposition. Surely, it is a unique thing to have local authorities coming forward and objecting to being given functions. Local authorities frequently object on many grounds to being deprived of functions, but I have never heard of a case of local authorities coming forward with such unanimity and saying "Do not impose this function on us in this way." It cannot be supposed that local authorities do not wish to have these functions; of course they do. They have set aside their natural desire because they feel that if this function is given in this way, it is worse than useless.
7.15 p.m.
There are two main lines of criticism. The first is that there has been, and is to be, too much central control. This seems to be another example of what has appeared in several connections in the last couple of years, of the central authority trying to have it both ways, to push the administration on to local authorities, and to keep the reins in its own hands. That is a bad thing. If we are to give our services to local authorities, we must trust them, and not keep the central direction, which I am afraid the Scottish Office likes to have in these days. That is one objection to the Bill. The other is that the finance is all wrong. It is not a bit of good saying that local authorities had to pay for their fire services before the war. First, they were their own masters; secondly, the cost was not anything like so great; and thirdly, the plight of the rates had not arisen, except, perhaps, in a few areas. Now, things are very different, and to try in the present state of overburdened finances to justify putting a new and expensive service on to those finances, and only to make a grant of 25 per cent., seems to be something which the Secretary of State should not accept from the Treasury. On those grounds, it seems to me that there is ample objection to the Bill proceeding on the footing that it includes Scotland. My final word is this: whether the grounds of objection are good or bad, there is no doubt that they are very widely held, very widely held geographically, and very widely held politically. That being so, I beg the Secretary of State not to let this new service begin under that cloud. Make a fresh start. It may be that with further negotiation he may be able to convert

local opinion to something like this scheme. At least, one must take local opinion with one in a matter of this kind. I beg the Secretary of State, before it is too late, to accept this Amendment and to take the next six months to clear the thing up. He could then come forward at the beginning of the next Session with a new Bill. If he can get a Bill like this, good luck to him, but, if not, let him adapt it to democratic sentiment in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: I must apologise to Members for intervening in this Debate. I did not sit in the Standing Committee. My colleague the Joint Under-Secretary attended all the meetings of the Committee, and it is only because he has had to be in the honourable and ancient borough of Perth today at a conference on certain matters concerning road safety, that it has been thought desirable that I should take his place here on this occasion. I cannot approach this matter with anything like his knowledge but I will seek to give what I hope will be a courteous reply to the Debate. I would say, first, a word to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who raised this issue. I think that nowadays the habit of always making excuses for our existence in Scotland should stop. I constantly hear of the hon. Member saving something like this in the Committees: "We are small in numbers, and we cannot do this and that." That is an excuse and not a reason, and, indeed, is somewhat of an admission of inferiority on his part. The Opposition are represented on these Committees much more strongly than was the case of many Oppositions in the past.

Mr. Maclay: I was not referring at any point in my remarks to the Opposition. Members. I was speaking of the Scottish Members from both sides of the House on Standing Committees.

Mr. Buchanan: Even so, the number of Scottish Members far exceeds the number which formerly frequently considered other Bills. Indeed, in the past, there have been Bills dealing with Scotland which have been considered by Committees on which scarcely a Scottish Member sat. There was on the Committee a fair representation, which, with ordinary activity, ought to have been able to accomplish their task reasonably well.
The question of the unpopularity of the Bill in Scotland is really the main issue here. It is about the only thing that has been stated. I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) with whom I share representation of the great city of Glasgow—we represent different parts of it—that that great city has expressed no dissatisfaction about the Bill at all.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is an area to itself.

Mr. Buchanan: Yes, but it has not expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the Bill. Consequently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak in a sweeping fashion about wholesale dissatisfaction. Let me deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) about where Glasgow is mentioned. If he looks at the Fourth Schedule he will see that 10 areas are defined. They have to be defined because they include more than one district. As Glasgow is a district by itself it does not need a definition in the Fourth Schedule. That is the answer.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said that the Bill was, on the whole, welcomed at the start. Another hon. Gentleman said that there were second thoughts. Only one issue has really disappointed, not only Scotsmen, but all those affected, that is, the 25 per cent. grant. This Bill, introduced by the Home Secretary with a Scottish application Clause, would have met with comparatively little or no criticism had it not been for the question of the 25 per cent. grant. Shorn of that issue, where was the opposition? Is it to be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Scotland is to get a different standard of grant from that given across the Border, because even if we had a separate Measure tomorrow, so long as the 25 per cent. grant was retained, strong opposition would he felt in Scotland. So, unless the Opposition are to insist that Scotland should have financial treatment different from that given south of the Border, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case about unpopularity falls.
Let me deal with the other matter which has been raised, this idea of the central Government at St. Andrew's House being the strong man, guiding everything and interfering. What are we doing in this Bill? We are returning

the fire services to the position in which they were in 1938. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape responsibility, to some extent, for what happened in 1938. If my memory serves me aright, he was Solicitor-General in the then Government. I do not place upon him the major responsibility, but he must have some. What did the 1938 Measure do? We seek to have less power—and this is my reply to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs—we seek to do far less interfering than did his then leader who represented Leith, Mr. Ernest Brown. Under that Act the then Government set up a commission, which had the right to go round and inspect every local authority in Scotland and if they thought that they were inefficient they had the power to recommend their suppression as fire brigade authorities. That was an autocratic power. We have not taken that power here, yet these are the people who come and complain of the power we are taking, when they took a power about which, if we had retained it, we should have been challenged, and quite rightly—a power which was exercised on the recommendation of an outside body, not a Parliamentary body.
It is true that we now propose a 25 per cent. grant. What was the pledge made by the Coalition 'Government? If the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead had wanted a higher grant than 25 per cent he would have said so when the pledge was given The present Government are improving upon that pledge. All that was agreed to by the Coalition Government was to return the service to the 1938 standards We return to the 1938 standards plus something which we never undertook to do—a 25 per cent. grant.
I wish to deal with the question of firemasters, which has been raised. hope no one will disagree with two things that I am a bout to say. One is that in the present interval we must have our fire brigades running efficiently. We cannot allow them to run inefficiently if that can be avoided. Secondly, if the State is to hand fire services back to local authorities, they ought to hand them back in an efficient state. No one could look back on the 1938 type and feel terribly proud of our fire services. Indeed, in Scotland they were sometimes not up to the best standards. Many of the hon Gentlemen opposite took the same view of that point


as we are taking today. What did the Secretary of State do in order to hand them back in an efficient state? He sent a letter to the local authorities involved, saying that he was thinking of appointing men so that when the brigades were taken over they could be taken over as an efficient and going concern The letter asked "What have you to say about appointments? What recommendations have you to make?" Indeed the assurance was given that the appointments would be designated ones—

Mr. Maclay: That is all very nice, but it is not the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: I am saying that that is what we have done as an administrative act. Any responsible Government must administer. We did what every Government does when a Bill is going through the House. On the assumption that a Bill will pass every Government takes administrative steps to make it work. That is what we have done. We sent a letter to each local authority involved saying "We are proposing in the Bill to make certain appointments. Kindly give us your comments, kindly consult or come and see us and join with us in seeing that the men appointed are the proper men." We even went so far as to say, "In view of the fact that the Bill is not passed we will only make them designate appointments so that when you take over if you find the man is not suitable then there is nothing to keep you from getting rid of the appointment."We did that as an administrative act. I think it was proper.
7.30 p.m.
Almost on every occasion, it is argued that we must have a separate Scottish Measure. I hope that in these matters I am no less Scottish than my hon. Friends. I would say to those who are members of my own party and who made that demand that they, like me, have been elected to carry out a policy of big social change. If this Government are to go through with it, we cannot on every issue have a particular Scottish Measure. To other hon. Members I say that it has never been their practice to do this in the past. In the past the administration of Poor Law benefit was abolished throughout the country and centralised in London. When hon. Gentlemen opposite give me what amounts to a lecture on local government,

I ask them who are they to lecture? Each case must be taken on its merits. This Bill can be properly applied through the application Clause. Even the English Conservatives who sat on the Committee which discussed this matter upstairs could not reconcile themselves to this, because only two of them voted on it.
I think that in relation to Scotland this Government are carrying out their pledges in full. We are returning the brigades to the local authorities. In addition, we are granting them the same local autonomy they had in 1938, and also we are giving them from the central fund, the National Exchequer, with the same conditions attached as there were in 1938, a 25 per cent. grant. Far from the Government being criticised, I think that Scottish Members are entitled to say that this Government have acted with decency and much more generously than most other Governments would have done.

Mr. Maclay: I hope I am right in believing that with the permission of the House I may be allowed to say a few words in reply?

Mr. Buchanan: If that is so, I will ask for the same opportunity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is in Order for the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to speak again.

Mr. Maclay: I am relieved by the Joint Under-Secretary's interjection because It restores my self-esteem a little. Every time I am in conflict with the hon. Gentleman he goes for me good and hard and I feel very humble and ashamed. He does that, however, I sometimes suspect, because he is not very sure of his own case. He is really a rather good merchant in dealing with herrings, particularly red ones. Properly speaking, he should be a constituent of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who would be very useful to him on the subject of herrings.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered the main charge which we have made. This is a technical job. It is one which is essentially for the local authorities who know the work because they have always done it. My personal charge is that, whatever may be the merits of the scheme, the Secretary of


State has failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland. It has been suggested that there has not been all the outcry about which we have spoken. The fact remains that we have the two documents to which reference has been made—those from the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils. They are, or appear to be, in total disagreement. I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary said anything which was useful. He made some very good points which, in certain circumstances, would have been valid. In this case, they are not valid. I do not think that he has been able to meet the charge that, whatever the merits of the scheme, he has

completely failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland of those merits. In this matter the local authorities must collaborate. All we ask him to do is to go back and have another shot. We ask him to see whether he can knock sense into the local authorities. It is even possible that the local authorities may knock sense into him and the Secretary of State. I gather that he is not willing to try again and, therefore, we will have to divide on this issue.

Question put, "That the words 'Great Britain' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 60.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
17.36 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M


Adams, W. T, {Hammersmith, South)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
McAllister, G.


Ayles, W H
Field Capt. W.
McEntee, V. La T


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Fool, M. M.
McGhee, H. G


Bacon, Miss A.
Forman, J. C.
Mack, J. D.


Balfour, A.
Gallacher, W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Ganley, Mrs C. S
McKinlay, A S.


Barstow, P. G.
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Barton, C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Battley, J. R.
Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Berry, H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mathers, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R.
Medland, H. M.


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blackburn, A. R
Griffiths D (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Mitchison, G. R


Blyton, W. R.
Guest, Dr L. Haden
Moody, A. S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Gunter, R. J
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Guy, W. H.
Morley, R.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bramall, E. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mort, D L.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A
Moyle, A.


Brooks, T J (Rothwell)
Harrison, J.
Murray, J. D.


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Hastings Dr Somerville
Naylor, T- E.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Burke, W. A
Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Oldfield, W. H


Barmichael, James
Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Champion, A J.
Holman, P.
Orbach, M.


Chater, D.
Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Chetwynd, G. R
House, G
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hoy, J.
Pargiter, G. A


Cobb, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parker, J.


Docks, F. S.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Collins, V J
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Colman, Miss G. M
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pearson, A.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Irving, W. J.
Peart, Thomas F.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K: (Camb'well, N.W)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Corlett, Dr, J.
Janner, B.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Corvedale, Viscount
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cove W. G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Crawley, A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pryde, D. J.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ranger, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Deer, G.
Key, C. W.
Reeves, J.


Delargy, H. J
King, E. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Rhodes, H.


Dodds, N. N
Kinley, J.
Richards, R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Leslie, J. R
Rogers, G. H. R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Levy, B. W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Edelman, M.
Lewis, A W, J. (Upton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.




Sharp, Granville
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)
Westwood, Rt Hon. J.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wigg, Col. G. E


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Skinnard, F. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, S)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Snow, Capt. J. W
Turner-Samuels, M.
Willis, E.


Sorensen, R. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Woodburn, A.


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S.


Stamford, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wyatt, W.


Steele, T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Strachey, J
Watson, W. M.



Stross, Dr. B.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Symonds, A. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Cole, T. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, S. W
Manningham-Buller, R E.
Thorp, Lt-Col. R. A F.


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, Sir D, (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gage, C.
Mott-Radelyffe, Maj C E



Galbraith, Cmdr T D
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gridley, Sir A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Mr. Maclay and




Colonel Gomme-Duncan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary powers of fire authorities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 15.
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take together this Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed.
Clause 3 (2) was amended in Standing Committee to provide for a county district council to be consulted by the fire authority before fire alarms are maintained in its area. Clause 3 (1, c) contains power to maintain fire alarms, and it includes a requirement that the chief officer of police shall be consulted. The Amendments which I am proposing are merely drafting Amendments to bring together all the consultation provisions in this respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sparks: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we

taking all three Amendments together, or will they be put separately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, they will be put separately.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed.

7.45 P.m.

Mr. Sparks: There is one point on this Amendment on which I would like further enlightenment. My right hon. Friend will notice that in the Amendment it is provided that these powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief of police. I am told that it is rather exceptional for a statutory power of this kind to be given to an officer in his official capacity, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary would agree to substitute the words "police authority" for the words "chief of police." If the police authority is willing to delegate its powers to the chief of police that is another matter, but I am told that it is rather unusual to place an official in a statutory


position of responsibility of this kind. If that were accepted, the Amendment would mean that the local fire authority would have to negotiate with him, to the exclusion of the police authority as such. Would not it be better that the fire authority should be under an obligation to consult the police authority rather than an official?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I think it is undesirable to name an official rather than the authority in a matter of this kind, for it may be that the official, if he were at loggerheads with his committee, might take up a curious attitude, because he would be the authority, who would have to deal with the matter. Unfortunately, however, in my area, if the Home Secretary did what my hon. Friend wants him to do, we would be in a worse position than ever, because it so happens that, in the interpretation Clause of this Bill, the "police authority" and the "chief officer of police" are to have the same definition as is given to them in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. Under that Act, in the Metropolitan Police District in which Croydon lies, the "police authority" is my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues in the Cabinet. The "chief officer of police" is the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. We are, therefore, in the awkward position under this Amendment that we would have to go to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis over any triflng thing that has to be done in Croydon. That seems to be going to a high authority over slight matters, and it is a question whether the administrative difficulties really justify that course of action. On the other hand, if the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is pursued, we should then have to go to my right hon. Friend himself, and burden him with the work. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can throw any further light on the matter, but I would caution him to beware of accepting my hon. Friend's advice.

Mr. Pargiter: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would further elucidate the point about the chief officer of police for the area, because it is in the Metropolitan Police area where an inspector may virtually be in charge of an area. In

the County of Middlesex, as such, there would be no one chief police officer who would be readily available for consultation. As a matter of fact, there are many people of that rank all over the place who could not be readily contacted, and if this particular reference is left as it is there will be some doubt as to its interpretation.

Mr. Ede: There is no doubt that to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), at any rate so far as the Metropolitan Police area is concerned, would make the provision worse than it is under the Bill, because, undoubtedly, the police authority for the Metropolitan Police District is the Secretary of State. The chief officer for the Metropolitan Police District is the Commissioner. What would happen in the administration of this Measure would be that when the application was received by the Commissioner as the chief officer of police, he would refer it to the superintendent in charge of the division in which the proposed alarm was situated, and would get his report, and in most cases I should imagine that would be final. Because of these difficulties, the same form of words was used in the 1938 Act. It is not unusual to refer to officials in Acts of Parliament. Certain certificates have to be given by people like the county surveyor, who generally thinks that he is too big a man to be called by that title and insists on calling himself the county engineer. There are other instances where it is an administrative act involving the technical experience and knowledge of the officer. In those cases—and I think this falls well within that category—this is the usual formula that is applied. I think the House would be well advised to repeat in this Bill the nomenclature used in the 1938 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, at the end, to insert:
unless they have been approved by the Minister in charge of any other Government department.
The House will recollect that when we were in Committee earlier this afternoon, I drew attention to the fact that these words helped us out of one of the difficulties that had been brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston).

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(County and county borough councils to be fire authorities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out Subsections (2) and (3).
The new Clause which we discussed at the beginning of the Report stage this afternoon provides for all the things that we originally intended to have covered by these two Subsections.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Secretary of State to make combination schemes.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 7, line 26, after "any," to insert "area or areas of a."
This is a drafting Amendment. There can be no population of a fire authority. The population is of the area controlled by the fire authority, and this Amendment would make the necessary correction in the wording of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Constitution and powers of fire authorities constituted by com- bination schemes.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from "scheme," to the end of line 31.
This Amendment is also consequential on the new Clause moved at the beginning of the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Transitional provisions.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 12, line 32, after "may," to insert:
after consultation with such associations representing local authorities as appear to him to be concerned.
We had a discussion on this point on the Committee stage. It will be remembered that the local authorities were concerned that, when the right hon. Gentleman was making regulations with regard to the transfer of property, and so on, he should consult them. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge that he would so consult them. It happened that he received the local authorities that afternoon. He told us that he had given them the pledge, and that he would consider, later on, the necessity for putting the words into the Bill, if we desired it. In my own view, I think it would be a good thing to put the words into the Bill having regard to

the fact that he has given a pledge. I hope, therefore, that he will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: It is true that I had a consultation with the local authorities, and, indeed, our proceedings were so harmonious that afternoon that they did not press me to do anything. I regret that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) should be more distrustful of me than were the local authorities. But, nevertheless, I have a great respect for his estimate of my character, and I realise that it is desirable to protect oneself from one's frailties, and, therefore, I accept the Amendment.

Mr. Grimston: Might I say that if I were assured that the right hon. Gentleman would always remain the Home Secretary, I would not press the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any property vested in a local authority being a fire authority for the purposes of the Fire Brigade Act, 1938, and used only partly for the purposes of the National Fire Service shall not be transferred to fire authorities except with the consent of the local authority which shall not be withheld unreasonably and which may be given subject to reasonable terms and conditions and if any question shall arise under this provision it shall be determined by the Minister of Health.
This Amendment raises a slightly different point, which was also discussed on the Committee stage. It is that on the transfer of the buildings to the fire authority, some of those buildings will have been used in the past both for the fire service and as depots, or for other purposes, by the local authorities. The local authorities are concerned about this. The question of the ownership of a site or building arises. The local authority may have to transfer a property which is in part use by them and for which they have paid. The object of the Amendment is to put local authorities in a strong position to assert their rights in this matter, with the proviso that in the event of a difference of opinion it should he submitted to the Minister of Health. This matter was discussed in the Committee, when the Home Secretary said he would look into it again. I am now inquiring what result has come from the talks he has had with local authorities on the matter.

Colonel Wheatley: I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. It is very reasonable and it gives the authority protection which they want if their property is likely to be taken away. The fire engine may be kept in the building which is also used for other administrative purposes, or for the storage of council property like carts or lorries. It will be very inconvenient if it is taken away from them without consultation. We ask that they should be consulted. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr Grimston) has asked that the Minister of Health may give a decision, so that local authorities will not be holding up any arrangement unreasonably. The Amendment would give them full protection.

Mr. Ede: We discussed this matter in Committee and I undertook to consider the best way of dealing with the situation. I have very considerable sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) but I do not think I could include the Amendment in the Bill. Let us be clear on the point. If the depot of the urban or non-county-borough has been partly used for fire services, the whole depot cannot be transferred to the county council, but only that part which has been used for the fire services, or the laying out of which has been charged to the fire service account. It would be almost impossible in the old days to spot what was charged to fire service account, unless there had been a loan. Expenditure on the fire service was part of the general district rate and was lumped in with all the other general expenditure of the area. Therefore, only the part which was in fact used for the fire service can be transferred under this Clause.
The appropriate thing to do is so to frame the regulations as to provide that there shall be consultation, and that, if there is no agreement, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. I would not welcome this matter being submitted to the Minister of Health. After all, this is a fire service, and you might just as well say that a dispute with a police authority should be referred to the Minister of Health, or that when he has a dispute with a health authority it should he referred to the Secretary of State, or that a question of doctors' remuneration should come up with a health authority, the Secretary of State should settle it.

That is not the way we conduct our administration in this country. The appeal should lie to the Secretary of State. It should be made clear that where that kind of situation has arisen, in which part of a building belonging to the county district council has been used for fire services, the county council will either have to find a new building or will have to rent the part of the old building, which can sometimes be done without any detriment to the county district council's-services.
Sometimes a fire station is part of the municipal offices or the municipal depot. It should be easy to arrive at the appropriate rent for the new fire authority to pay to the old fire authority for the use of those premises. I hope that we shall be able to cover by regulation the points raised in the Amendment. I do not think, except in one or two cases, great difficulty is likely to arise.
We might get up against the kind of thing which has arisen in Lancaster with regard to the police offices, and which also arose curiously enough in Lancaster also with regard to some of the school buildings which had been given to the old non-county borough, and might have passed to the county education authority, when the non-county borough education powers were withdrawn. I do not think we shall come up against this kind of thing in the fire service. Certainly, it would be most exceptional, in view of the fact that the fire service has been a much more co-ordinated service in those non-county boroughs than either police or education. The arrangement that I suggest will enable us to deal with the practical situation.

Mr. D. Jones: A large number of county districts have in the past used a centralised repair depot for their fire service vehicles. What will happen in the event of a dispute about the occupation of the repair depot when the services are transferred? I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend when he argues that disputes ought to be referred to the Secretary of State, who, in this case, is an interested party. The arbitrator should be a disinterested party. There is the other point in regard to a building used for administrative purposes by more than one service of the local authority. There again, there may be difficulties. Indeed if my


information is correct, there is some difficulty now in regard to the transfer of part of one building, as a consequence of the Police Act, 1946. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to say a word about that matter now.

Mr. Pargiter: There is a further point upon which we should like elucidation on the question of paying rent for part of a building. It will involve some difficulty in the case of a building used both as municipal offices and as fire station. If the fire station was on separate premises, they would be transferred to the new authority. But the fire station may be in part of a building used for other purposes. All the loan charges on it may have been paid off, and, consequently, if the building is to continue to be used by the fire service, there ought to be no rental charge. I hope my right hon. Friend will elucidate that point.

Mr. Ede: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points which have been raised. I think where a new fire authority has to use rooms or buildings which are part of the equipment of a county district council and which cannot be divorced from the equipment of the county district council, some financial arrangement will have to be made, because it is so difficult in these cases to trace what was bought out of fire service money. It is not like the police station, the school or the education offices which, in the main, were built out of a loan, in respect of which the authority had to get the sanction of the Ministry of Health or some other Government department to the raising of the loan for that specific purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) asked what would happen in the case of a county district—and it would have to be a fairly large one—which had its own vehicle repairing depot, and so on, part of which was used by the fire service. Every case will have to be examined on its merits, and I should have thought that in that case, if the county desired to use those facilities, they might very well do so on a customer basis. That is to say, they might make some arrangement whereby vehicles which they wanted repaired could go to the county district council's depot and be dealt with there on some agreed scale of charges. I think generally an

arrangement in respect of labour and materials plus a certain percentage for overheads is agreed between the two authorities, and this is regarded as a suitable arrangement. But, of course, there is a variety of arrangements which can be made. I think the same principle applies to the other points which my hon. Friend raised with regard to the relationship between the old and the new fire authorities.
I hope that in the spirit which now prevails, we shall be able to launch this new system without any great difficulties with regard to these problems of the joint use of buildings, some of which will only be required for joint use for quite a short time until the county can make the appropriate arrangements. During the existence of the National Fire Service, arrangements have had to be made, and reimbursements from the National Fire Service to the county district councils have been made without, so far as I know, raising any difficult questions between the county district councils and the Home Office. I imagine that the same kind of spirit will prevail between the county district councils and the county councils.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I think this short discussion has shown that many general problems will arise, but, so far as the Bill is concerned, the position we have reached appears to be this: The Home Secretary will have to have consultations with the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has given a pledge that in these particular cases also he will have consultations, and has also given a pledge that in the regulations there will be provision for arbitration in the event of complete deadlock. They will have to come before the House, and so it seems to me that we have covered the position as far as we can. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, to leave out paragraph (e), and to insert:
(e) for the reimbursement of interest and redemption charges incurred, by an authority for the purposes of the said Act of 1938, in respect of moneys borrowed in connection with property vested in pursuance of the last foregoing paragraph for rendering the fire authority in which the property is so vested liable for


the reimbursement, and for the determination by the Minister of Health of questions arising under this paragraph.
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to meet certain criticisms of the wording of the Bill which were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) when we were in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—(Procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from "officers," to the first "of," in line 11.
I think it would be convenient if we took with this Amendment the next Amendment, in page 20, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(b) the procedure for the appointment by a fire authority of members, other than the chief officer, of any such brigade.
In the Standing Committee my hon. Friends the Members for South Salford (Mr. Hardy) and Gorton (Mr. Oldfield), moved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to deprive the Secretary of State of power to make regulations regarding the method and qualifications for the appointment and promotion of members of fire brigades other than chief officers. In the discussion I satisfied the Committee, I think, as to the need for retaining the regulation—making power contained in Clause 19 (1, b and c) relating to qualifications for appointment and promotion procedure. I undertook to draw a distinction between the method of appointing chief officers and the method of appointment of other officers of fire brigades, to make it clear that the appointment of persons other than chief officers should be the responsibility of the fire authorities.
These Amendments have been discussed with the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. The latter body is satisfied with both of them. The County Councils Association are satisfied with the first, but are not particularly enamoured of the second. I am bound to say that I attach considerable importance to the second Amendment. I think it is important that a man who is brought into the service of a local authority, especially where his entry into the service involves him in entrance into a specialised superannuation fund

like the fire service pension fund, ought definitely to be appointed by the authority, and not by the chief officer. Therefore, I am glad to think my views on this matter are shared by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I think they are sound, and should be embodied in the Bill. That matter is provided for in the second of the Amendments to which I am directing the attention of the House. The chief officer of the fire brigade would be appointed by the local authority, subject to the approval, after the appointment has been made, of the Secretary of State. These two Amendments, I think, carry out the whole of the pledges I gave to the Committee in this matter, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 12, at end, insert:
(b) the procedure for the appointment by a fire authority of members, other than the chief officer, of any such brigade "—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—(Fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, at the end, to insert:
and if in connection with the making of a scheme under paragraph (b) of Subsection (5) of this Section the fire authority so requires, the Secretary of State shall cause a public local inquiry to be held before he makes the scheme.
Hon. Members who served in the Standing Committee will recollect that on 22nd May I accepted the principle of an Amendment moved by the Opposition to replace Subsection (8) with a new Subsection, the effect of which would have been to make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry if the fire authority asked for it in any case where he proposed himself to make an establishment scheme because he thought the scheme in force was not satisfactory. I asked that I might be allowed to consider the wording. I have done so, and I think this Amendment carries out the desires of the Opposition, and in a form which is approved by the draftsmen. I am sure the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) knows how important it is in these matters that the best ideas should be clothed in language which is approved by the draftsmen.

Mr. Grimston: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that good intentions are better clothed when approved by the draftsmen.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 21, line 20, after the second "provisions," to insert "ancillary thereto."
This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause to which the House agreed earlier today.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 23.—(Training centres.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 22, line r, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) The arrangement to be made for the central training institution established under this section shall secure that the institution shall be under the general direction of a board—

(a) consisting as to half of persons appointed by the Secretary of State and as to the remainder of persons appointed by such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of fire authorities, and
(b) having as chairman such member of the board as may be selected by the other members with the approval of the Secretary of state,
and that before appointing the person having control of the administration of the institution the Secretary of State shall consult the board.
I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to listen to me for a little longer on this Amendment. On the last day on which the Standing Committee sat, I indicated that on Report I should have to ask the House to consider the wording of Subsection (2) as it now appears in the Bill. It was inserted in the Bill against the advice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It was not a point on which, in principle, we desired to resist the wishes of the local authorities and the Committee, and I hope that the form in which the Subsection will appear if this Amendment is accepted will prove to be satisfactory. One objection, which I regard as fundamental, to the Subsection as it now appears in the Bill is that if it remains, the people employed in this central training institution will not be eligible to participate in the pension funds. Quite clearly, it is desirable that the people who will be engaged in this central training institution shall be people who have been in the fire service. Some of them will probably come to the institution for a few

months, will take part in the courses there in giving instruction, and will then return to their fire authority and be replaced by other people from other fire authorities. It would be deplorable if we were handicapped in getting the best men together, merely because they thought: "Well, if I go there and stay for a year, I lose one year of my pensionable service." That would produce results which might be very harmful to the efficiency of the institution.
Therefore, I propose that this central training institution shall be managed under arrangements which will secure that the board, who direct it generally, shall be constituted half by persons appointed by the Secretary of State and half by persons appointed by the bodies who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the fire authorities—that is, the County Councils Association and the A.M.C., as far as England is concerned. I shall also have to have representatives of the Scottish local authorities, because, in spite of what has been said today, I am hoping that we may be able to have one training institution for the United Kingdom. I am assured that a fire in Northumberland is not very different from a fire in Berwick-shire, although there was a time when people used to try experiments on both sides of the border to ascertain whether that was true; I understand that it is now an accepted fact. As I say, I hope that we shall have one institution for the United Kingdom. The chairman will be selected by the others, and his name will be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Before appointing the principal of the institution consultations will take place to ensure that the person nominated is acceptable. I hope that these suggestions will enable an efficient institution to be established.

Mr. Grimston: As the Bill was originally drafted, there was no provision for the fire authorities to be brought into consultation in the management of the Central Training College. I appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave this Subsection as it is in the Bill. If men were denied pension rights for the time spent in the college, it would be very detrimental. The right hon. Gentleman has met the feelings of the Committee, and we are pleased to accept the Amendment

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 30.—(Powers of firemen and police in extinguishing fires.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 30, line 9, after the first "fire," to insert "wheresoever it may occur."
I have put this Amendment down to raise a point which is a matter of concern to the Fire Officers' Association. There have been cases in the past where a fire has occurred in a barracks, or dockyards, or even on a ship, where the commanding officer has thought that he should take charge. If there were a possibility of a dispute of that sort fire-fighting might be hampered. The Fire Officers' Association are of the opinion that it ought to be laid down in the Bill that the senior officer in charge should be in charge of the fire wherever it might occur. Of course, he would go for advice to people who know the place, and who were perhaps in charge of bodies of men there, but there should be no doubt that it should be the chief fire officer who was in charge. If the words of my Amendment are not suitable, I feel sure the Home Secretary will take steps to make the point clear, perhaps in another place.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am not sure that the Amendment is necessary to secure the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. The words of the Clause are "at any tire," and I do not think it will make them stronger by adding the words "wheresoever it may occur." However, I appreciate the difficulty, and I will have the matter carefully examined, so that if there is any doubt about the position of the senior fire officer on the job, it shall be removed in another place. The words of the Clause already remove another difficulty which used to be felt sometimes. I understand that it was customary, in the old days, for the senior officer present at a fire to be the person in control. It has come within my experience that a person in control of fire fighting was changed four times in the course of a single fire because, as neighbouring brigades came in, another man, who was senior to the man in the area where the fire occurred, was put on to the job. Unless a special arrangement has been made to the contrary beforehand, the person in charge at the fire will be the senior officer belonging to the brigade in whose area the fire has originated. I

hope that the language we have used is plain enough to cover the old difficulty, plus the one suggested by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), but if his point has not been covered, I undertake to see that the Clause is corrected in another place.

Colonel Wheatley: Supposing there is a fire in a factory which has its own fire brigade, controlled by a very junior officer; supposing that in the town there is a county fire brigade; will it be clear that the officer in charge if there is a fire in the factory, will be the junior officer of the factory brigade?

Mr. Ede: I should have thought that that would be covered by the words:
or, if any arrangements or reinforcement scheme.
The hon. and gallant Member will remember that in Committee we discussed the position of the private brigade. I assume that time will be taken by the forelock in these matters, and that if a publicly-supported brigade goes into a factory the officer in charge will be known. It may be either, if an arrangement has been made. I hope that in all these cases an appropriate arrangement will be made. The fire authorities will be advised to see that they are made before such a contingency such as the hon. and gallant Member described arises.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman fully satisfied on the point about the military fire squad in barracks? Who would be the senior officer there? It is not a question between one brigade and another or a works fire brigade and a municipal brigade.

Mr. Ede: I think that point should be covered by the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley). It will be known that there is a barracks, with a certain amount of fire risk, or a naval dockyard, in an area, and I would have thought that on the passing of this Bill, when we come to the scheme for dealing with fires, it would be desirable at that stage for the local fire authority to get in touch with the Navy, Army or Air Force authorities to make quite certain who is to be in charge in the event of a fire. Recently I have been having conversations with my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation with regard to what is to happen and who


is to be responsible when there is a fire on a civil aerodrome. I cannot help thinking that in these cases, where the contingency could be so clearly foreseen, arrangements ought to be made beforehand so that there is no doubt when the fire occurs who is to be the person responsible for directing the fire fighting services.

Mr. Grimston: In view of the assurance which the Home Secretary has given, and for which I am much obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 30, line 9, after "senior," to insert "fire brigade."
It would be to the advantage of the House if we took together with this Amendment the Amendments—line 9, and line 34. These Amendments are of a drafting character and are designed to improve the construction of the Clause by referring only to the senior fire brigade officer whose status is defined in the new Subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 9, to leave out from "present," to "shall," in line 14.

In line 22, to leave out "or other person."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in line 31, after "fire," to insert:
or in the absence of any officer of police the senior fire brigade officer present.
This was another matter raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in Committee. There was some danger in the form in which the Opposition Amendment was put down that there might have been two people directing traffic at the same time, possibly in contra ways. I think the form of words now suggested carry out what the hon. Member had in mind to ensure that there shall be one person responsible for the direction of the traffic. It will be the senior officer of police while there is any officer of police on the spot, and if there is no police officer the senior officer of the fire brigade present will take over the duties until a police officer arrives.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 34 at end, insert:
(6) In this section the expression "senior fire brigade officer present." in re'ation to any fire, means the senior officer present of the fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act in the area in which the fire originates, or, if any arrangements or reinforcement scheme made under this Act provide that any other person shall have charge of the operations for the extinction of the fire, that other person."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 36.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, to leave out "fire authorities," and to insert "councils."
This Subsection is for the purpose of making it clear that a fire authority cannot really be a fire authority until it is so constituted, and the Amendment is to introduce the more appropriate term by calling them "councils."

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 35, line 37, to leave out "hold land or to."
This is a drafting Amendment Subsection (11) of Clause 36, to which this Amendment relates, sets out the conditions under which fire authorities and joint committees may exercise borrowing powers. Subsection (9) also provides for the Secretary of State to confer on fire authorities the power to hold land, but the reference to this latter power which has been included in that Subsection is not relevant to the purpose of the Subsection, the drafting of which would be improved by the omission of the words proposed to be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 36, line 27, to leave out Subsection (15), and to insert:
(15) Section one of this Act shall have effect as if for Subsection (2) thereof the following Subsection were substituted:—
(2) (a) Any member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act authorised in writing by the authority maintaining the fire brigade shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a fight to enter any premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of obtaining such information as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing Subsection:


Provided that admission to any premises in which persons are employed otherwise than in domestic service shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.
(b) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a sheriff or a justice of the peace—

(i) that admission to any premises has been refused, or that refusal is apprehended, or that the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the case is one of urgency, or that an application for admission would defeat the object of entry; and
(ii) that there is reasonable ground for entry into the premises for any such purpose as aforesaid,
the sheriff or justice may by warrant under his hand authorise the authority maintaining the fire brigade by any member thereof authorised as aforesaid to enter the premises, if need be by force:
Provided that such a warrant shall not be issued unless the sheriff or justice is satisfied either that notice of the intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier, or that the premises are unoccupied, or that the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the case is one of urgency, or that the giving of such notice would defeat the object of the entry.
(c) A member of a fire brigade authorised as aforesaid entering any premises by virtue of this Subsection, or of a warrant issued thereunder, may take with him such other persons as may be necessary, and on leaving any unoccupied premises which he has entered by virtue of such a warrant shall leave them as effectually secured against trespassers as he found them.
(d) Every warrant granted under this Subsection shall continue in force until the purpose for which the entry is necessary has been satisfied.
(e) If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this Subsection or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
(f) A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Subsection or of any warrant issued thereunder shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence continues after conviction thereof.
This Amendment is in pursuance of a promise given by my colleague the Joint Under-Secretary during earlier discussions. Clause 1 of the Bill confers on members of fire brigades the power of

entry to premises such as is conferred upon authorised local authority officers under the Public Health Act, 1936. There is no corresponding up-to-date provision in an English Act giving powers of entry in a Scottish Act, and in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) objected to the reference to the 1936 Act on the ground that Scottish lawyers would find it inconvenient to have to refer to an English Act of which they might not have a copy. This Amendment proposes to substitute for the reference to the Public Health Act the actual provision concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(c) section (Fire brigade committees in counties).
I explained this Amendment earlier on. The new Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would, if this was not inserted, apply to Scotland, and the purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to prevent that Clause operating in regard to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 38.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 38, line 20, leave out "land," and insert "lane."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 39.—(Short title, extent, repeals and savings.)

Amendment made: In page 38, line 38, leave out "paragraph (f)" and insert "paragraphs (f) and (g)."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Making, approval, and variation of establishment schemes for counties.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 40, line 3, at the end to insert: "AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES."
This Amendment, and all the remaining Amendments on the Order Paper in my name, are consequential on the new Clause adopted earlier this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 5, leave out from "authority," to "send," in line 7, and insert:
proposing to make an establishment scheme to which this Schedule applies or a management scheme shall, before making the scheme." —[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.— (Application to Combined Fire Authorities of provisions as to establishment schemes.)

Amendments made: In page 40, line 36, at the end, insert "AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES."

In line 40, after "matters," insert:
or to which management schemes relate (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as 'management matters').

In line 41, at the end, insert:
Provided that in the case of an authority constituted by a combination scheme so as to become a fire authority on the appointed day, provision for management matters may be made either in the scheme constituting the authority or by the variation of that scheme as soon as may be after the appointed day.
(2) In this Schedule references to a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme shall be construed, in relation to management matters, as reference to such an authority the area of which consists of or includes one or more counties other than the County of London.

In page 41, line 2, after "twenty," insert:
and Subsections (3) and (7) of Section (Fire brigade committees in counties).

In line 6, after second "authority," insert:
and in the case of an authority being the council of a county the management scheme for the authority.

In line 11, after "establishment," insert or management."

In line 15, after "establishment," insert or management."—[Mr. Ede.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: Before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill there are one or two things I should like to say. I should like to express appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has met us in the Committee stage and on Report both in the matters we have discussed this afternoon and on other questions. The coming into law of this Bill will mean the demise of the N.F.S., and I do not think one ought to let the occasion of the Third Reading of this Bill pass without paying a tribute to the magnificent Work done by the National Fire Service. In saying that I am quite persuaded that the set-up under this Bill, whereby the

fire-fighting services pass back again to the local authorities, is a far better arrangement for peacetime.
One of the consequences of this Bill compared with prewar is that there is going to be a higher expenditure both in money and manpower. Whereas the strength of the full-time firemen before the war was 6,000, at present it is 22,000. I was glad of the assurance that the Home Secretary gave us during the Committee stage that the figure will be considerably reduced, although, of course, the level left will be higher than before the war, and I think he said today that by the time the appointed day came the figures would be down somewhere in the neighbourhood of the envisaged establishment for peacetime.
The real answer to the fire menace is not an expensive and large fire-fighting service. It lies in the old proverb, "Prevention is better than cure." What we look for is the improvement of building structures, the segregation of dangerous processes, the installation of sprinklers, and other preventions against fire. I only express the hope that a good deal of attention will be given to that side and that the knowledge of the existence of a far better fire-fighting service will not diminish the efforts being made in that direction. I will not refer to Scotland. We have had a discussion about that, and I would conclude by saying that it will be agreed that, as far as England is concerned, we spent our time well on the Bill, which leaves this House a much better Bill than when it entered it. I again thank the Home Secretary and I commend the Bill to the House and to those who have to work it

8.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I must thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) most sincerely for the generous words which he used about me. It has been a very great pleasure to pilot this Bill through the Committee and through the House. We had rather a rough passage on the Second Reading, but I was very gratified at the way not merely the Members of the Committee, but also the local authority associations buckled to the task of making as good a job of this Measure as we possibly could. I join with him in his tribute to


the National Fire Service, and I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who was the father of the National Fire Service, came in to be present at this preliminary stage in the funeral of the child which has done him so much credit. I am not at all sure that if my right hon. Friend had had his way we should have got away with this Bill quite as easily as we have in the matter of cutting the throat of this very promising and efficient child. At any rate, the Government are one and united and the views of the Government have been put before the House most emphatically by me at all stages of this Measure.
It must be borne in mind that the National Fire Service saw this country through the greatest ordeal by fire it has ever had to face. It enabled reinforcements to be brought to the aid of very sorely stricken districts in a way which the previous system would not have contemplated, let alone have expected to perform. I join with the hon. Member also in expressing the hope that those measures which deal with the prevention of fire will receive more attention in some places than they have hitherto. I hope that one effect of a more efficient rural fire service will be that the fire authorities themselves will undertake instruction in various forms in order to minimise the risk of fire. I consider that the new service, whose shaping we have now finished so far as this House is concerned, will prove worthy of the very high traditions that have been set for it by the work of the National Fire Service during the period when the service has been withdrawn from municipal control.
I regret that we have not been able to have today's proceedings without a Division, but at any rate those of us who represent English constituencies are not responsible for any delays which may have occurred today. I want to thank my hon. Friends on this side who were in touch with local authority associations and who took part in our deliberations upstairs for the very helpful way in which they brought to the notice of the Committee the points that were perplexing those associations. There are one or two matters in this Bill which are of very great complexity, particularly the effort to rewrite the pension and compensation schemes for these people who have had

so varied a life in the last six or seven years. I am quite sure that the House will realise that the regulations which will have to be made to carry out as far as one can the points that have perplexed the House today will need very careful study.
I have undertaken to let the hon. Member for Westbury know when these regulations have been tabled so that we may have ample opportunity of discussing any points which are still doubtful after the regulations have been drafted. I desire that every person who came from the municipal service into the national service and now returns to the municipal service shall have nothing but happy memories of his time in the national service and shall not be prejudiced in his future municipal service because of this second transfer in the course of what, for many of these men, is a comparatively short professional career. I thank the House for the response it has given to the Bill.

8.55 P.m.

Colonel Wheatley: I do not want to encourage any further internecine strife on the Government Benches, but I think the Lord President of the Council should be very grateful to the Home Secretary for the way he has undoubtedly satisfied the local authorities over the contentious point of what was meant when the Lord President, as Home Secretary, said, "I am going to hand the fire brigades back to the local authorities." No doubt most local authorities thought they would get back the ones they had before, but the Home Secretary very cleverly got round that difficulty. I think everybody will now be quite happy and satisfied over that. The First Schedule will clear up that difficulty and everyone will be satisfied that all will now be well.
We have, quite rightly, heard praise of the National Fire Service, and we might also say a word of appreciation of what the old fire brigades did. Many of them were extremely efficient, and the local authorities responsible for them were rightly very proud of them. I only hope that the local authorities will take the same pride in the new fire brigades. I have one word of warning for the Home Secretary on the question of expense. The local authorities are very worried about the undoubted extra expense of this new system, and responsibility rests with the Home Secretary


in making his schemes to see that the authorities, especially in the country districts, are not too ambitious in having too big a brigade or too many brigades, or too many buildings out in the country. Fires take place mostly in the towns. We may get houses burnt down in the country—Himley Hall and Lulworth Castle were examples—but such incidents are few and far between compared with the dangers in the towns. I am sure the local authorities will be very contented if the Home Secretary will bear that in mind. I would add my word of thanks to the some Secretary for the very sympathetic and amiable way in which he has accepted our Amendments. I hope he will agree that the Opposition have been able to assist him in improving the Bill

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I find myself in rather a quandary because, as far as I understand, 38 Clauses out of the 39 Clauses in this Bill have a very reasonable degree of support in all parts of the House, but unfortunately there is no harmony or agreement about the 39th Clause—39th not in number but in total. Owing to the peculiar device of the Scottish application Clause which produces a scheme which is not acceptable in Scotland, whereas the English Clauses are acceptable, one is left wondering what on earth to do about it. I do not really want to divide against the Third Reading in these circumstances. The only thing I can do to meet my position—the Procedure of the House does not fully provide for the quandary I am in—is to stop speaking at once, collect my papers, and, with as much dignity as possible get out of the House before I can be accused of having agreed to this Bill.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.1 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I make no apology for claiming the attention of the

House for a few minutes on the subject of this Bill, and I do so for two reasons: first, because I consider that 29 minutes, which was all that was allocated by the Government to the Second Reading of this rather important Bill was so short as to be almost a travesty.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver: ) The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the wrong Bill.

Mr. Smith: I appear to have hatched my egg too early, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — PENICILLIN BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

9.2 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think it unnecessary for me to repeat what I said the other evening. Owing to an inadvertence, we did not get the Second Reading, although I believe it was the intention of hon. Members in all parts of the House to let us have a non-contentious Second Reading of this important Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The right hon. Gentleman ought to ask leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can speak only with the leave of the House and I do not propose to make my speech over again; otherwise I should once more be guilty of repetition. However, I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. Members who spoke on the last occasion all said that they agreed with the principle of the Bill, though there may be one or two points with which we shall have to deal in Committee and, as I indicated on that occasion, I have already agreed to certain Amendments which I hope will satisfy some hon. Members in all parts of the House who think the Bill can be improved. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without much ado.

9.4 P.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise again—this time at the appropriate moment—with the intention of making a few remarks in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has justly called this important Bill. I do so for two reasons: the first is because I think the Government were amiss in allocating only a bare half hour, which eventually turned out to be 29 minutes, for the Second Reading. Secondly, because I did put down and move a Prayer against Statutory Rule and Order No. 731 of 1946 which this Bill seeks to supersede. On that occasion, although I furnished the Ministry of Supply with the points I wished to raise beforehand, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply came down to the House so badly briefed that he was unable seriously to answer the points I raised, and he returned no adequate reply to my considered objections. I had hoped that the Minister of Health might have condescended to read my remarks on that occasion, and to inform his mind with regard to my views on the subject. I am not unlike Mrs. Caudle who said:
It's seldom I open my mouth, goodness knows! But when I do, I expect you, Mr. Caudle, to flatter me with a little attention.
Alas, the right hon. Gentleman is not unlike:
the deaf adder who stoppeth her ears,
because this particular Bill enshrines the very points to which I took objection in the original Order. I do not object to the control of penicillin. I think it has been clearly demonstrated, particularly in regard to the comparatively new discovery of "penicillin resistance," that a control is necessary. But I object very much to Clause 2 (1), where it states:
The substances to which this Act applies are penicillin and such other anti-microbial organic substances produced by living organisms as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Health….
I regard that as an omnibus Clause, and I am, as I think the House knows, very strongly opposed to omnibus Clauses. It gives the Minister power to control substances which at present may not even have been discovered. He arrogates to himself the powers of a god, and that really is something which no human being should ever do. My main objections to the Bill are objections which, perhaps, I may describe as being of technical prin-

ciple. First, the Bill limits the use of penicillin to, amongst others,
a duly qualified medical practitioner.
What is
a duly qualified medical practitioner"?
Now, the normal man would say that a duly qualified medical practitioner is a doctor who holds certain medical degrees and busies himself with the practice of medicine. But that is not what the law says. The law says that a duly qualified medical practitioner is a person registered under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1858. The Medical Practitioners Act, 1858, is a dreary and desolate legislative wilderness, as anyone can discover who has taken the trouble to study it as I have done. Therefore, in this Bill, it is really a question primarily of his registration, and only secondarily of his qualifications. The term "a duly qualified medical practitioner" is verbally a misnomer because a medical practitioner who happens to have been struck off the Register by the General Medical Council cannot dispense penicillin, however duly qualified he may be in regard to his medical degrees and his personal skill.
I would point out that this Bill will personally affect me very adversely because in the matter of doctors I am essentially politic. I observe three rules in regard to them. I make it a rule, first of all, never to employ a family or personal physician. I employ a doctor by the simple combination of two things, first of all, a relative knowledge of my own symptoms, and secondly, my knowledge of various doctors by the results they have achieved. If I happen to be mildly ill, I always call in one of the local medicos. I keep a list of them; and I call them in in turn. It is a practice which I commend to all Members of this House. Doctors are excellent missionaries, and if one has six missionaries working for one, they are better than one. I do that in my capacity as constituency politician.
But if I believe, or have reason to believe, that I am seriously ill, I invariably call in a doctor who has been struck off the Medical Register—for very practical reasons, because he or she cannot sign my death certificate. He or she cannot avoid the consequences of any mistake they may have made in regard to my case by the simple expedient of having me quietly buried or cremated, and sending a floral tribute for the decoration of my coffin.


They are as much, and indeed more, interested in my survival than I am. That is what a doctor should be. I applaud the custom of the ancient Chinese, who paid their doctors while they were well, and expected their doctors to pay them while they were ill. Therefore, I strongly object to this provision, which will prevent me, when I am seriously ill, from receiving the benefits of penicillin.
In the matter of doctors who have been struck off the Medical Register, I am somewhat in the position of the Mahatma Ghandi in regard to the Untouchables; and I regard this as a most disagreeable manifestation of the principle of the "Closed Shop," which as such ought not to be passed by this House. I would point out, rather more seriously perhaps, that this disqualification does not simply apply to doctors who have been struck off the Register for some allegedly unprofessional conduct. It applies—and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to this point—to doctors who have resigned, for quite other and often perfectly proper and public reasons, from the Medical Register. Indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is well known as a great physician, is, I believe, a living example of this particular type. This Bill cuts him off from a supply of penicillin, which is altogether too absurd to be countenanced by the House. That is my first technical objection to this Bill.
My second objection is that under Clause 1 (2, f) any Minister of the Crown, irrespective of his personal knowledge or qualifications, may obtain an unlimited supply of penicillin. Let me take the example of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who can get all the penicillin he wants, although I have yet to learn that it is an adequate remedy for which I believe the average British housewife, who has not a very subtle knowledge of Greek, would probably translate as "arrogance." I know it is a ridiculous instance but I could multiply it, and I have taken it purposely because I believe that one cannot conscientiously examine and criticise a Bill unless one has recourse to the age-old principle of reductio ad absurdum. It is a fact that what we are doing is

allowing the Attorney-General under this Bill to acquire all the penicillin he might fancy he wants, whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley, a qualified doctor of great experience, will not be allowed to have any at all.

Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) can obtain all the penicillin he wants merely by requesting that his name be put back on the Register.

Mr. Smith: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend specifically resigned from the Register because he felt that, occupying the public position which he does, he ought not to remain upon the Register—a consideration which does not influence, probably quite rightly, my hon. Friend opposite. I seriously contend that in regard to these points this Bill is very badly drafted and ought not to pass the House in its present form. I contend that the draftsmanship of a Bill should be able to pinpoint with tolerable accuracy and perspicuity the various interests specifically affected. I contend that the Bill before us fails lamentably to do this.
Probably the only Minister of the Crown who really fitted to have control of penicillin is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food I have been looking her up in "Who's Who"; but "Who's Who" is relatively silent with regard to her qualifications. I cannot suppose her however, to be a very good doctor for, if she were, how come she to be a Member of a transitory and unsatisfactory Government when she might be employing her healing arts for the benefit of mankind? I think I have shown cause, for two very vital reasons, why this Bill ought not to pass without some much more satisfactory explanation than we have had so far from the Minister, although he has actually spoken twice on the subject; and if the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall on those points, and those alone most certainly vote against it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Snow.]

Orders of the Day — DAY NURSERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the situation regarding the provision of day nurseries. It seems to me that at the moment the position is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, the Government are urging mothers with young children to go out to work and to leave their children in day nurseries. On the other hand, the local authorities are closing them down on the score of expense. A case of this was reported on Tuesday in the "Daily Express" which said:
Wives seize a nursery. Mothers locked themselves in the day nursery in Littlemore Road, Pudsey, this weekend and refused to open the doors until the police came in through the windows. It was protest No. 1 at the Pudsey Council's decision to close the nursery because it was too expensive. Protest No. 2 will be a silent one. Thirty mothers will not turn up for work at local factories making textiles for export. 'We have to stay at home to look after the children,' they say.
I do not say that that is necessarily typical of what is happening all over the country, but the fact remains that, last year, 167 of these day nurseries were closed. It is not my purpose tonight to discuss the merits or otherwise of day nurseries, or whether mothers with young children should go out to work. In normal times, the proper place for a mother with young children is in the home, and, however good a day nursery may be, it cannot equal a good home environment. But the times are not normal, and there is a recruiting campaign now in full swing, in those districts which are short of women workers, which is designed to persuade them to enter or re-enter industry.
Sir Godfrey Ince, speaking of this campaign, said there were 300,000 vacancies for women and girls at the employment exchanges; he said that the textile trades were 150,000 women short, compared with the number they employed before the war, that the clothing trades were 100,000 short and the laundry trades 23,000 short. He also said that, although there are 700,000 more women working today than were working in 1939, there are over a million less than were working at the peak period of the war. Unless we can get these women back into

industry, and into these particular industries, there will be no hope of an end of clothes rationing, neither can these industries make their proper contribution to the export trade. It is quite useless the Government appealing to mothers to go to work unless they make provision for looking after their children on a proper scale. Many of these mothers are only too anxious to do their bit, and they would willingly work if they knew how to get their children properly looked after. During the war, there was a great extension of day nurseries. I believe there were io6 in 1939, and at the peak period of the war, there were 1,560, with accommodation for 60,000 children.
But in December, 1945, a joint circular was sent out by the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Education to welfare and local education authorities on the future provision of nursery accommodation for children under five, and that circular pointed out that, with the end of the war and the passing into law of the new Education Act, it was envisaged that the day nurseries, which had been set up to deal with the problem of evacuation and the production of munitions, would gradually cease to function, and that, complementarily, at the same time, there would be a wide extension of nursery schools and classes. The local authorities were to regard these day nurseries only as supplementary to the nursery schools and only to meet the cases of mothers who had to go out to work. I think that that policy was right at the time, but I do not think it was envisaged then that we should have this very serious manpower problem and, while very few nursery schools have been provided since the war finished, the closing down of these day nurseries has cut down the existing accommodation without providing any alternative.
In any case, nursery schools do not deal adequately with the case of the working mother. In the first place, they do not take children under the age of two, and, very often, not under the age of three. They are only open during school hours, and, of course, they are closed during the long school holidays. But I have no doubt in my mind that finance has a great deal to do with the closing down of these day nurseries. Up to 31st March, 1946, the Minister of Health assumed the entire financial responsibility


for them, but after that date local education authorities only received the same grant as they received for education purposes—something just over 50 per cent.—and the position today is that there are only 897 day nurseries as compared with the figure which I quoted previously of 1,560 at the peak period.
There is the further point that, whereas during the war mothers paid only 6s. per child per week, today they are subject to some kind of means test, and have to pay anything up to 30s. It seems to me that a new situation has arisen which justifies a re-examination of this day nursery problem based entirely on the 'need to make provision for mothers who wish to go to work and want accommodation for their children. I know that a few firms have opened works nurseries. We opened one in my works, and I must say that it has been a great success. But we cannot rely to any great extent on works nurseries. In most cases the factories are not suitable for conversion. They have hardly the right environment, and further, very few firms have the necessary space available. I have not brought this matter forward in any critical spirit. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the problem afresh in the light of the present situation and see whether there is anything he can do to stimulate the local authorities to open or reopen day nurseries wherever the need exists.

9.28 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I wish only to add a few words to what the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has said. I am glad that he has raised this subject, because I think that there is a great deal of uneasiness in the country about it. However, I would like to join issue with him a little on the question of children under the age of two. I think that there is now a general feeling in the country that mothers with very young children should, if possible, be at home with them, and not go into the factory. We all know that there is a very great urge for mothers to go to work, but it is not quite the same urge as there was during the war years when we were very glad to have mothers, with babies who had just left the breast, going into factories.
I feel that perhaps the Minister has not taken sufficiently into consideration the fact that we had hoped that nursery schools

would be opening almost immediately, and that they would take over, for children over the age of two, the functions with which during the war the day nurseries had to concern themselves. Our anticipations, unfortunately, have not been realised. There are many reasons for that which need not be dilated upon now, because they are too well known to everybody. The Minister of Education has had to say that the shell, the essential part of the schools, must be built first, and that such adjuncts as nurseries, and even canteens, must wait until a little later. The necessity for that raises a rather new situation. How ought this situation to be dealt with?
The hon. Member for Newark has mentioned something in which I am very interested, and I am anxious that the Minister should pursue some inquiries about it. It is the question of day nurseries being built near or actually at the works. During the war we felt that that was a mistake because most works were in vulnerable areas. We turned our face against it then, but the position is different now. We have to consider the case of the mother who gets up early to go to work and finds that the only nursery to which she can take her child is at the other end of the town. It means a long journey both before she goes to work and afterwards, when she is tired. It also means that she is cut off from her child all day long. Perhaps we can pursue this matter a little further. I would like to press the Minister for his views, and perhaps for a promise that he will consider the question. We do not want any kind of place in the factory for the children, but somewhere with pleasant surroundings. We want a place that is properly furnished and well equipped, and with suitable people in charge. It would be a very great convenience to mothers in industry, especially in places where nurseries have not already been built. The mothers might be able even to see their children at lunch time and have their meals with them in the canteen. It is along those lines that I should like the Minister's advice tonight.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) for raising this subject, which has a bearing upon the production problem with which the Government are now confronted. I had


not intended to intervene in the Debate, but it happens that yesterday I received a letter from a branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, deploring the fact that a day nursery in the town was being closed down. My first reaction was to write to the local authority before I approached the Minister, but as we now have an opportunity to discuss day nurseries, I will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister, and inform him that this branch of the A.E.U. has written to me in protest. The town in question has a large number of operatives engaged in the textile industry. It is an essential industry employing a large number of women. Many of us would much prefer that married women with children should remain in their homes, but this is becoming very difficult at the present time. I ask the Government to consider, if local authorities have difficulty in meeting out of the rates expenses incurred in running day nurseries, whether some assistance can be given. The North of England suffered considerably during the recent fuel crisis in loss of wages, owing to the industrial shutdown. The Government might see their way to keeping the nurseries open. I have taken the opportunity to inform the Minister that the A.E.U. is particularly interested in this subject. I hope he will have some announcement to make and that he will be prepared to consider assisting local authorities who feel they cannot continue the expense of day nurseries.

9.35 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I hope the Minister will keep his mind open on the possibility of improving the conditions as they exist at present. On many occasions in my constituency there has been brought to my notice very forcibly the need for extra nursery accommodation at a reasonable price. I would also point out that in the London area many women go to work not in factories, but individually, or one or two together, so that there is no question of having factory or works crèches, which in their way, of course, are very desirable. I hope the Minister will keep in mind another factor which ought to be given "points," so to speak, in estimating the necessity for these places, and that is the question whether the homes from which the children come are of a suitable kind. If they were very good homes with plenty of accommodation, it might be possible

for mothers to arrange for someone to look after them at home, but unfortunately many of them are not suitable. In many parts of London, however, that is not possible. The type of home and the cost are matters which have been brought to my attention by several trade unions and local authorities, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something which will give hope to those who find it difficult to carry on working because they have no place to which to take their children.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: There is one aspect of this matter which I would like to mention, and that is its effect on agriculture. In the coming years we have to produce more food, and particularly more fruit and vegetables in this country. In many counties, notably counties like Kent, we rely largely on women to get in those crops. I admit it is seasonal. It starts with pea picking, and goes on to the soft fruits crop, then hop picking in Kent, and finishes with apples. Some difficulty has been experienced in getting women to leave their homes because there is nowhere to leave their children, particularly young children, while they are working. I realise that the Minister cannot do anything about it in this present year, but as the matter has been raised, I have called attention to this problem of day nurseries as it affects the countryside.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I would like to know whether the Minister of Health could give some information about the average cost now charged to people for sending their children to day nurseries. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) said that in some cases the cost was as much as 30s. a week. I heard that general allegation made some time ago, and I took the trouble to investigate it. I found the average cost was about 10s. a week, and that, in many cases, parents were sending their children to day nurseries free of charge. Could we have some information on that point, because it is most important? On the question of young children of about one or two years of age I would say that during the war my wife was working and our young baby, who was then under one year, went to an admirable day nursery, but we found the arrangement


did not work. She was miserable and unhappy, and we had to take her away. I would like some guidance as to whether it is wise to send children of that tender age to day nurseries.

9.39 P.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) for having raised this very important matter, because it provides me as, indeed it has provided other hon. Members, with an opportunity of saying a word or two on the subject. There is some misapprehension about the existing situation. It is not quite as bad as it is made out to be in some quarters. In 1939 there were 104 day nurseries in England and Wales. In 1944 the number increased to 1,550, with places for 71,000 children. In 1947 these had fallen to 900 with places for 44,000 children. In the meantime we have 370 nursery schools for 19,000 children. These figures show a higher proportion of women in industry and of nursery facilities than in time of war, and so we are nor falling behind in that regard. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that the substitution of nursery schools in place of day nurseries is progress. We all regard nursery schools as the better solution of the two.
But I do want to make it quite clear that the Government are not making a drive to recruit for industry women who have children under two years of age. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping that it is undesirable for a mother to leave all day her child of that age. We do not wish to encourage it. Nor, indeed, do we wish to drive women into employment who have got burdensome domestic responsibilities, because the maintenance and welfare of a young family is one of the most important considerations for the State; and we must not allow ourselves to be panicked into recruiting women into industry if, as a consequence of that, we have neglect of young children and what was seen during the war, the appalling indiscipline of many young children. I do hope we shall have a sense of proportion.
Now, of course, day nurseries will increase; but, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know, there are very grave

physical limitations on what we can do. We have limited physical resources. We need very much more than we have got. So it is not possible for us to extend to the extent that we might like. I would remind hon. Members that it is not easy to staff nurseries when we have them. Domestic staffs, nursing staffs are very difficult to get, and very often these nurseries have been closed down because of the absence of efficient staff. That is a further difficulty that we are up against. We have, of course, about 150,000 children in infant departments of primary schools, which is a very considerable contribution towards helping to solve this problem, and about 250 wartime nurseries have become nursery schools. So we are making some headway. We are hoping to expand wherever the need is proved. Whenever the Ministry of Labour say that more nursery places are required, the Ministry of Health at once approaches the local welfare authority, and arrangements are made for the opening up of the day nurseries.
But hon. Members must not imagine that this is always an economic affair. Indeed, some of the nurseries have been frightfully expensive. It would be far better if women just remained at home. Some have cost so much we could have afforded to send the mother and her child on holiday to the South of France rather than keep the nursery open at all. So we must not imagine that the day nursery is an economic proposition. We have to balance the disutility in maintaining a day nursery against what a woman would be producing in industry, if she went into industry. We must not have these babies wrapped up in platinum merely in order to say we have got day nurseries. For instance, in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency—at Newark—half the present accommodation is unused.

Mr. S. Shephard: I was not talking about my own constituency.

Mr. Bevan: No, but that is slightly relevant. It does go to show that where these nurseries are provided they are not always used to the extent we should like to see them used, and to the extent they are not used, of course, the overheads can become really too burdensome, and local authorities then close them down.
I have been asked whether we would consider assisting financially local authori-


ties who find the burden too heavy to carry. I must be quite frank with the House. I do not consider it good public policy to give local authorities special grants which are so high that the local authorities have no financial interest in the economic management of their own affairs. We give an average of 50 per cent.; and that is an average above most of the other grants. If the grant is increased to 75 per cent., or, as I was asked by some hon. Members the other day, to 100 per cent., it would be monstrously extravagant. If we are to entrust, as we must, the management of these day nurseries to local authorities, the national finances must be safeguarded by giving the local authorities an interest in the economic running of the day nurseries. If the local authorities find that the discharge of these services becomes too burdensome the solution is, not to make them financially irresponsible by increasing the amount of the grant, but to re-adjust the local burden all round.
It very often happens that the House of Commons is subjected to pressures which ought, in fact, to be exerted against local authorities. If local authorities are negligent—and they are, after all, elected bodies, and it is open to the citizens of those areas to make the local authorities face up to their responsibilities—a good deal of the pressure which is sometimes exerted against me might be exerted to far better effect against the negligent local authorities up and down the country.
Let me say a few words on the very important point of créche facilities in fac

tories. I am not quite sure what my powers are in that regard. I think that probably it would be better to do it by persuasion; by giving assistance here and there, where-ever it is required; by giving help and guidance, unless we had some wide legislative power—which, indeed, we have not got at the present time. Not all factories are desirable places for young children to go to. What my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has said is quite sound. If a mother has to travel long distances in order to deposit her baby, before starting work, and then has to travel that long distance to get the baby afterwards, the attractiveness of work becomes quite impossible in certain circumstances, and we should pay a very high price in the fatigue of the mother, and lose as a consequence.
I will certainly explore further to see to what extent it is possible to provide creches in suitable factories; because it does not require argument to appreciate that if a mother can run out for a moment or two in the course of the day to look at the baby she is much more satisfied, and the baby is much more satisfied; and she would be able to take the baby home with her straight away, without having the fatigue of unnecessary travel. We attach very great importance indeed to the development of day nurseries, but not to the development of day nurseries which are so under-used as to make them quite uneconomic.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Ten o'Clock.